Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Northern Ireland

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is to be an important statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland after Question Time. I do not know why the papers relevant to that statement are embargoed until after the Secretary of State gets to his feet. The effect is that hon. Members will not have the documentation available. Surely the House should be entitled to the documentation upon which the Secretary of State will expand. I have been informed by the Library and by the Vote Office that they cannot give any of the documents out until 3.30, at which time hon. Members will be in the Chamber listening to what is being said.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is normal procedure. It is of course at the discretion of the Minister concerned whether he allows the documentation to be released before he makes a statement or when he rises. In most cases, the documents are released when the Minister rises. There is nothing untoward about today's statement in that respect.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Rolling Stock

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how soon the train leasing companies created as a result of the passage of the Railways Act 1993 will be in a position to order the construction of new railway rolling stock.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The new companies will assume responsibility for the provision of rolling stock from April 1994.
They will be able to order new stock proyided they can make a sufficiently attractive investment case.

Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister accept that if no work is done by the leasing companies to prepare for giving orders early next year, some of the important manufacturing companies in Britain will have unacceptable, and possibly fatal, delays in their order books? The Minister gave a press conference in my constituency a couple of months ago, at which he looked forward to a time when rail rolling

stock manufacturers could look ahead over 10 years, see what sort of work was available, and decide how they could gear up for it.
What will the Government do to create those conditions in railway rolling stock manufacturing, and stop making companies go from hand to mouth and from one order to another? Will not the industry go from crisis to crisis if the Government approach continues?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that orders totalling £400 million have been received for new rolling stock in the past few weeks, made up of £250 million for the Jubilee line and £150 million for Networkers. That is an excellent start.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must move from a situation of companies going from order by order to one in which they can look forward 10 years. The best way to achieve that is to put the rolling stock companies and the train operating companies into the private sector. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) laughs, but his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) does not share his mirth. It is important that those decisions are taken by the private sector, not the public sector.

Mr. Gale: May I thank my hon. Friend for the considerable encouragement and support that he has given to the case of providing new rolling stock for the Kent coast line? May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team on securing the order for that line? Will he continue to give every possible encouragement to other private companies to produce the kind of rolling stock on the coastal services that we used to expect, and hope to expect again?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was a British Rail decision, but the House should be aware that the rolling stock supply industry has been delivering stock not wholly free from defects. If there is to be an improvement in the frequency and quantity of orders, the rolling stock industry must play an important role. The Kent link Networkers are already 12 months late, the class 323 Regional Railways electric trains are 18 months late, and the class 158 Regional Railways diesels were two years late. That is not good enough, and an improvement by the railways supply industry will help to instill confidence into the private sector.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister not realise the extent of the crisis in the private sector railway manufacturing industry, where tens of thousands of jobs are now at risk because of the blight on investment created by the run-up to privatisation?

Mr. Riddick: More scaremongering.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman may say, "More scaremongering," but he should go to speak to the private sector Railway Industry Association to find out what it thinks of the Government's performance, rather than mouthing nonsense from behind the Minister.
Could the Minister tell us why, while every airline in the world uses leasing to acquire new planes and every European railway uses leasing to acquire new railway stock, we are still talking about a single leasing contract being authorised by the Government, while the west coast


main line is starved of investment and, all over the country, local authorities want to be involved in new rolling stock deals?
Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, before we have anything of the new leasing companies, there will be a more positive approach to leasing to acquire new rolling stock, thereby saving jobs? There is no need for the fragmentation of the railways or privatisation to get leasing schemes going and investment in railway rolling stock.

Mr. Freeman: We should have orders for new rolling stock to serve the passengers, not to protect jobs. The jobs will be protected automatically if two conditions are met—first, that the railways can prove that they need rolling stock on a particular line—one does not order it simply to keep the production line going, as I am sure that the hon. Member for York will agree—and, secondly, the order can be classified as an operating lease. There is no need for British Rail to wait until 1 April 1994 to place another order. If both the major manufacturers step forward and make an attractive offer to British Rail between now and then, I am sure that such an offer will be well received and carefully considered.

Mrs. Browning: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, once small lines such as the Tarka line, part of which goes through my constituency in Devon, are privatised, when there is a need for new rolling stock, those franchisees will not be precluded from providing the rolling stock and, contrary to the scare tactics of the Liberal Democrats of the south-west, those small lines will continue to be run and to be well stocked?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure her that the Tarka line, like many other small branch lines, has an excellent future. I am not aware of any proposals for closure. She is right. We look to the private sector— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) seems to find that funny. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear it, I will repeat the answer. That branch line and other branch lines are not under threat. Members of the Labour party and Liberal Democrats put about those scare stories unnecessarily.

London to Midlands Rail Link

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from industry and commerce in the west midlands in respect of infrastructure and investment requirements on the London to midlands rail links.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I have received a number of representations about upgrading rail links to the midlands. We announced in July the appointment of advisers to work on a joint venture to renew the west coast main line infrastructure.

Mr. Rooker: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the importance of that line to west midlands manufacturing and to all the constituencies there, including yours, Madam Speaker? Does he also understand that the signalling belongs to the last century, trains regularly have to slow down to 20 mph, it is faster to get from London to York than it is to get from London to Wolverhampton, and that it is a disgrace that even the public and private sectors,

meeting in Birmingham today, which want to put forward joint schemes, see the opportunities diminishing as the Government stick to their dogmatic policies?
The line needs upgrading, and if the Secretary of State wants to win any support for himself, to show firm support for manufacturing, and to prove that not all the infrastructure goes to the south-east, he must come forward quickly, rather than shovelling the matter off to one list of consultants after another.

Mr. MacGregor: The infrastructure is not all going to the south-east. I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure that he knows of the £550 million of investment that has been made in the east coast main line. I recognise the need to get on with improving the infrastructure of the west coast main line and I recognise that it will be a massive undertaking, costing on infrastructure alone probably up to £600 million. The priority is the older part of the line south of Crewe. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the appointment of advisers to investigate the possibility of a joint venture between the public and private sectors is not a postponement of consideration of the matter. We have been getting on with it very quickly and we are making good progress. He will recognise, however, that, given the need to keep the line running, it is probably a 10-year project.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is acute anxiety in the west midlands not only about the main line, but about ancillary lines because the local service is a disgrace? Will he give me a real and realistic time scale within which my constituents will have a service that compares with the east coast line?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the £6 billion of investment that British Rail has made in the past five years. There has certainly been no shortage of investment; the question has been priorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we have been getting on with the study by the financial advisers and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. The extent to which we are successful in making the west coast main line infrastructure programme a joint venture involving private finance will determine whether we shall be able to release more of the available resources for other parts of the BR infrastructure.

Mr. Dobson: When will the Minister recognise the deplorable and declining standard of service on the line from London to the west midlands and on to the north-west and Scotland, which connects Britain's major industrial centres and most centres of population? Aside from all the waffle about joint projects, further inquiries and guest studies, when will work start on the ground to provide the service that the people of the west midlands, the north-west and Scotland want and deserve?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that, first, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the £6 billion of investment that has been made in the past five years. British Rail has been conducting some study work on the infrastructure requirements and all the detailed assessments that must be made before final decisions can be taken about the west coast main line. I assure the hon. Gentleman, who does not seem interested in the answer, given the way in which he is looking around, that there is no question of waffle. We are getting on rather rapidly, with the prospects of a joint venture study—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman seems


to think that guffaws are a substitute for serious thinking. We shall then get on with the further technical work that will have to be done on this major infrastructure project, bearing in mind that it is a busy line and that trains will have to pass over it all the time. I assure him that we are getting on with it rapidly.

M12

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to hold a public inquiry on the building of the M12 from the M25 to Chelmsford.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): It is too early to say when we would hold a public inquiry. We would expect to consult the public about this route next spring.

Mr. Burns: May I make a suggestion to my hon. Friend that would help to save public spending and to get rid of this unloved, unwanted and unasked for road? No doubt he will be aware that nobody in the area—Members of Parliament, local authorities, local residents—wants this road, which would be an environmental disaster. If he wants to become a much-loved local hero, he will kill this proposal here and now. If he does so, he will be feted in every village and town between the M25 and Chelmsford from here until eternity.

Mr. Key: What a wonderful invitation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advice. I might even hold him to it one day.

Transatlantic Air Routes

Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards liberalisation of transatlantic air routes.

Mr. MacGregor: My aim is to work closely with the United States Government to meet the objective of agreement on liberalisation of UK-US air services by April next year. The refusal of the US Government to grant British Airways for a reasonable period the code-sharing rights to which it is entitled is a step backwards.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is it not shameful that our close friend and ally, the United States, should adopt such an outrageous posture in this matter? Working closely with the United States is clearly not sufficient to protect British airlines' interests because my right hon. Friend is, I presume, doing that already. What action does he propose to take, and when does he propose to take it, to hold the Americans to their international obligations?

Mr. MacGregor: I assume that my hon. and learned Friend is rightly referring to the US Government's decision to grant British Airways its code-sharing rights for only 60 days. That has nothing to do with the liberalisation talks that we are undertaking this year with the US Government. It is entirely to do with a breach of the "United States existing international obligations. We believe that it is breaching those in allowing British Airways only 60 days for its new code-sharing rights. That is wrong and we therefore have no option but to prepare for retaliatory action against US services that were introduced as a result of the Heathrow deal, from which BA's rights come. On 17 November, we accordingly warned the US Government that we proposed to limit United Airlines services to

Washington and American Airlines services to Chicago from 12 January—the date on which BA's code-share approval expires—unless the approval was renewed by the United States in the meantime. I am sorry to have had to take that action, but I believe that we had no option, given the United States decision.

Mr. Olner: I shall fully support whatever action the Secretary of State takes on transatlantic routes, especially those into Birmingham airport which are so badly needed for the west midlands.
In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's previous answers, may I advise him to put some money into the west coast main line, because it will soon be quicker to fly from Birmingham to America than to travel on the west coast line from Birmingham to Heathrow?

Mr. MacGregor: That simply cannot be right. However, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a positive reply. In our liberalisation talks, the position of regional airports is very much in our minds and we seek to increase the number of flights to regional airports. On investment in Birmingham airport, the hon. Gentleman will have been pleased to see the consideration that Birmingham airport is now giving to seeking private sector finance for its expansion.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that a robust stand is taken to protect the interests of principal British carriers, such as British Airways and Virgin, on transatlantic routes and to ensure that they have sufficient gateways into the US? Will he also ensure that, to reciprocate, we are more willing to accept US carriers wishing to come to under-utilised British airports such as Stansted? Was it not sad that Trans World Airlines was refused an air service agreement into Stansted?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hoped that we could reach an interim agreement, while the main bilateral liberalisation talks were going on, to agree the TWA flights to Stansted in the summer. I put proposals to that end to my American counterpart and obtained some reciprocal benefits for the United Kingdom. I am sorry that, on that occasion, he could not agree and that he wanted to wait for the wider liberalisation talks. But I assure my hon. Friend that his point about flights to airports that still have capacity is very much in our minds.

Air Quality, West Yorkshire

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the dates, times and locations of any surveys carried out in West Yorkshire to monitor the air quality along the routes of the Al and other motorways in West Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Key: Four surveys have been carried out since October 1992. Twenty-four hour surveys were carried out on the Al at Aberford and on the M62 at Thorpe in October and November 1992 respectively. There were 10-hour monitoring surveys in August this year on the Al and M62 in Ferrybridge. The levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and lead measured at all locations were well below the designated values defined by the EC or World Health Organisation.

Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that the M62, which runs through my constituency, is one of the busiest motorways in the north of England? Although monitoring exercises have been carried out to measure the lead in the air, does he accept that people who live near motorways, particularly those near schools, are worried about the sulphur, nitrogen and other pollutants that are emitted? Should not measurements be taken more frequently so that people can at least be assured that the Government are doing something to ensure that there is no danger to people's health, particularly children's health, along motorways and where motorways are planned?

Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure is the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who, by virtue of his office, cannot ask that question. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking careful steps to monitor air quality and that when the draft orders are laid before the House next summer, they will include an environmental statement. That will include air quality monitoring and assessment details.

Mr. Waller: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the internal combustion engine tends to emit most pollution, particularly carbon monoxide, when vehicles are either stationary or slow-moving? That being the case, does he agree that, whatever the arguments for or against any scheme bypassing a settlement, it is unlikely that air quality will be one of the arguments underpinning opposition to such a scheme?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing more polluting than a traffic jam. On the whole, when traffic is moving freely, the dangerous emissions are minimised. That is something we take seriously when we are considering our road programme, whether it is widening a motorway or improving, or indeed bypassing, a particular village or community.

Road Construction

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates his Department has made as to the number of miles of new roads that will be constructed in the UK in the years 1993 to 2000 inclusive.

Mr. MacGregor: In 1993–94, we plan to start construction of some 130 miles, the vast majority of which is improvement to existing roads, including widening, and to bypasses, which are environmentally desirable and much in demand. For future years, the amount of road construction that we can do will depend on the availability of funds and the progress of schemes through statutory procedures.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for those figures. In sustaining that level of road building programme to meet the exponential rise of car ownership, has he considered what monetary instruments he might use to redress the balance of the use of the motor car in favour of other forms of transport?

Mr. MacGregor: One of the points that I wish to make clearly, as my hon. Friend talks about the rise of car ownership, is that we are not talking about vast new green field roads or roads over green field sites. Fifteen out of the

130 miles about which I have talked this year are concentrated on green field areas; the rest is widening and so on.
As to my hon. Friend's question about pricing, I imagine that what he had in mind was the consultation paper that I announced earlier this year about the possibility of motorway charging. I am currently considering all the many responses that we have had to the Green Paper from more than 230 organisations. We had a very constructive response, and I hope to make an announcement as soon as the paper is completed.

Mr. Harvey: In the light of the National Audit Office report about the spiralling costs of motorway widening, does the Secretary of State accept that the costs have got out of control? Given that public opposition to motorway schemes is widespread and growing, is he aware that all eyes will be on tomorrow's Budget, particularly on the ordinary roads programme and the public transport spending side of it, and if those areas, like others, are suffering constraint, would it not be quite wrong to continue pressing the case for super-freeways?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not going to comment in advance of anything that may or may not be said tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is also widespread concern from most motorists, but significantly from industry, at the congestion costs that arise when motorways are not able to take the flow of traffic. The congestion costs to British industry can be very serious. We have to have a real mind to the competitiveness of British industry, to which improved motorways can make a substantial contribution.
However much we devote public expenditure to rail investment, there will still be an ever-increasing demand for freight on the road, because so many of the journeys are comparatively short or are not made in accordance with the rail infrastructure. There will continue to have to be a substantial road programme if our economy is to remain competitive.
The NAO report looked at only 10 schemes, introduced since 1989. We are looking at that report, but if the hon. Gentleman reads it, he will see that the Department is taking a lot of action along the lines suggested by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Dykes: I welcome the Government's acknowledgement that the era of massive road building is over, because it is too expensive and it merely adds to congestion. Will my right hon. Friend confirm yet again, however, that over the next 10 years—as we win successive general elections—it will be Government policy to enhance the role of the railways, in whatever form, to ensure that, in this densely populated country, we focus just as much on rail travel?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will hear when I answer a later question, we devote substantial resources to public transport, especially considering the amount of traffic that it takes. In effect, we are skewing departmental expenditure plans significantly in favour of public transport.
My hon. Friend should recognise, however, that the railways are simply not suitable for large elements of freight transport, so it is necessary to ensure that we have thoroughly up-to-date motorways. My hon. Friend will note that we are concentrating pretty well all the road


programme on the improvement of motorways and principal roads and not building new ones. We are also concentrating on bypasses, for which there is a great demand.

Ms Walley: Is the Secretary of State not shifting his position in that he does not believe in the roads policy any more? Is it not time we had a real debate in this place on the National Audit Office report, and time there was a much greater shift towards public transport and away from a roads policy which is already £6 billion out of control?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not agree at all, and I am not shifting my ground. I make it clear again that we still need significant investment in our road programme if we are to have the road network that we shall need in the 21st century. Large numbers of our fellow citizens are buying cars in increasing numbers and have the wherewithal to use them more and more—and they will want to do so. They, too, will demand such a network—quite apart from the problems of congestion for industry.
I have also made it clear that we are investing substantially in public transport, which represents nearly 40 per cent. of our total spending. Only about 10 per cent. of traffic goes by public transport, so we are clearly and disproportionately weighting our expenditure in favour of public transport and have been doing so for some time.

Dr. Spink: When will my right hon. Friend report on the lower Thames crossing? Has Canvey Island been identified as one of the sites for that crossing?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not in a position to say. It is too early to give my hon. Friend the kind of information that he requires.

Bus Deregulation

Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he takes to monitor the effect on services of bus deregulation.

Mr. Freeman: The effects of bus deregulation outside London have been fully monitored through a programme of research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, which has published a number of reports on the situation nationally and locally.

Mr. Davies: What has caused the Minister to change his mind about London? If deregulation will not work for London, why should Greater Manchester suffer, especially when unrealistic bids by private operators can work only if services are cut, workers sacked and fares raised?

Mr. Freeman: I am pleased that Greater Manchester passenger transport authority has got on with splitting the bus company and selling the resulting two companies. The hon. Gentleman refers to an unrealistic bid by one company for Greater Manchester Buses (North). I do not believe that it is unrealistic. It is for the Greater Manchester PTA to make the decision and I hope that it will make it quickly. I wish the two companies, once split and sold, the very best.
London is wholly different from Manchester, Glasgow or Liverpool. The number of buses, the ridership and the intensity of use in London are very different. Next year, we are going to get on with privatising London's buses and providing a better service.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the fact that the Government intend to provide a better service on London buses for Londoners. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that service is already a great deal better than it was 10 years ago? Will he assure the House that, in the improved and deregulated market that he describes pensioners' and disabled people's travel passes will always be safe?

Mr. Freeman: There is no intention to change either the operation of the travelcard or the concessionary fares scheme.

Mr. Raynsford: Why does the Minister not come clean and admit that the real reason for his Department abandoning bus deregulation in London is that he knew it would result in traffic chaos in central London and a collapse of services in outer suburban areas, the consequence of which would have been electoral annihilation for the Government? Why does the Minister not take pride on this one occasion in having done something sensible and allowed common sense to prevail over unnecessary dogma? Deregulation was not right for London and should be abandoned as a policy.

Mr. Freeman: Obviously the common sense approach in London is what we shall follow, which is net cost tendering and privatisation of all London bus subsidiaries next year.

Mr. Milligan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the effects of bus deregulation has been to create companies which offer a range of transport services? In my constituency, the private bus company Southern Vectis is preparing a franchise bid for the loss-making coastal line. This will increase the frequency of railway services on that line from one per hour to one every 10 minutes. Does that not demonstrate that deregulation and privatisation will lead to an improvement in services, contrary to the allegations from the Opposition Front Bench that it will lead to a closure of unprofitable railway lines?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. Since 1989, bus mileage has increased by about 20 per cent. and operating costs per mile have fallen by about 40 per cent. [Interruption.] Do the Opposition disagree with that? Those are the facts. A deregulated and privatised industry will, I hope, bid for rail franchises and bring about a new dimension and improvement in railway services.

Asthma

Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the incidence of asthma in residents living in areas of high traffic volume.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I have received a number of representations, both from individuals and from organisations, about ihe incidence of asthma and high traffic levels.

Ms Coffey: Is the Minister aware that 39 per cent. of the population are at risk from respiratory diseases and that the treatment of asthma, now the most common disease, cost the national health service an estimated £344.4 million in 1988? Many studies have shown an association between asthma and residence in areas of high traffic volume. Will


the Minister initiate a proper national survey of the relationship between asthma and traffic volume so that any future transport policy will take into account the health of the nation as well as the pressure from the road transport lobby?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady seems unaware that the Department of Health has an independent expert committee on the medical effects of air pollutants. The committee has looked at this issue and a sub-group is specifically looking at the relationship between traffic and asthma. Had the hon. Lady considered that, she would be aware that, while there is no doubt that asthmatics need to use their inhalors more when nitrogen dioxide levels are high, there is as yet no evidence from studies carried out in this country and America which relates traffic emissions to the cause of asthma or to its onset. It is too early to say what conclusions we can draw; we will have to wait for the working party to report.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Will the Government be more vigorous about building the Stockport north-south bypass? Would that not be a useful way of tackling the problem to which the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) refers?

Mr. Norris: I agree with my hon. Friend's general observation that in all this great talk about every road being somehow inherently evil it should be remembered that when bypasses are in place some tens of thousands of people who previously suffered from traffic volumes, noise and emissions are provided with welcome relief.

Mr. Grocott: Would it not be better for all of us if the Government made serious attempts to transfer traffic from road to rail? The Minister should talk to his friends at the Ministry of Defence. In the past 12 years, the Ministry of Defence has closed down half the rail links from MOD depots to the main rail network, thereby—as a matter of deliberate Government policy—transferring freight from rail to road. One of the links that was closed was at the central ordnance depot Donnington in my constituency. Is that not one example of where one Government Department has not a clue what another Department is doing?

Mr. Norris: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, a disproportionate amount of the Department's overall budget is already spent on public transport. In London, for example, some £3 is spent on public transport for every £1 spent on roads. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the announcement that my right hon. Friend made earlier this year, he would know that the Government have considerably enhanced the provision of freight facilities grant to allow the transfer of traffic from road to rail, to effect precisely the kind of change to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Departmental Budget

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of his Department's annual budget is currently spent on roads and what proportion on public transport.

Mr. MacGregor: About 55 per cent. of my Department's expenditure is spent on roads; the bulk of the remainder is devoted to public transport. Given that 90 per

cent. of passenger and inland freight traffic is by road, this indicates the priority that Ministers give to public transport.

Mr. David Martin: I recognise the importance of public expenditure on public transport. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, of the horrendous problems caused by the traffic jams and delays on the A3 between London and Portsmout at present affecting Hindhead, which is the last bottleneck in a road that has seen many improvements under the present Government? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do all that he can to advance the cause of a bypass around Hindhead so that we can complete the excellent work being done on the A3?

Mr. MacGregor: I recognise the importance of a bypass at Hindhead to my hon. Friend's constituents in Portsmouth. Route and environmental issues have caused the delays to date, since the first public consultation in 1987 which led to the rejection of the first preferred route.
The detailed design is now being undertaken on a new preferred route, following an announcement earlier this year. That will lead to the publication of draft orders, expected in 1995. Meanwhile, a number of surveys are being carried out, including traffic and topographical surveys, and a ground investigation is due to start in the new year. I hope that that demonstrates to my hon. Friend that we are getting on with it.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State recognise that much of the money that is shown by the Comptroller and Auditor General's report to have been squandered by his Department on the road programme would have been better invested in London Underground? Ministers in their chauffeur-driven cars may not appreciate it, but people who travel on the tube every day know that the system is falling apart—that lifts and escalators are not working, signals are overloaded and tunnels are swilling with water—because the Government have failed to invest the necessary funds to make the tube system safe and sound. When will the Secretary of State change his priorities and ensure that the people of London get the decent tube service that they desperately need?

Mr. MacGregor: Investment in the existing underground network is higher than it was at any time in the 1970s and 1980s, including the period of the Labour Government. Moreover, the Central line is benefiting from a £750 million modernisation scheme. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends will note that Opposition Members dismiss that £750 million and laugh at it, but it is a significant amount of taxpayers' money. The scheme is due to be completed in 1995 and includes provision for an upgrading of power supplies.
I believe that London Underground has traced last night's fault to power cables at Lots road power station. They have been repaired and we must hope that the service will be able to resume as soon as London Underground is satisfied that the trains can run properly. I have every confidence in Sir Wilfrid Newton and his management and staff, who have worked around the clock to identify the problem and get the Central line operational again. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) should recognise just how much money is being given to London Underground by the taxpayer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Bail

Dr. Spink: To ask the Attorney-General what criteria are used by the Crown Prosecution Service when deciding whether to object to bail.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Crown Prosecution Service takes into account the considerations and exceptions to bail set out in the Bail Act 1976 and any other relevant information available to it, including material from the police, the probation service, and other sources.

Dr. Spink: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he share with the House the feeling that the interests and concerns of victims should take priority over those of the perpetrators of crime? Can he assure the House that in making decisions about bail he will take full account of the interests of victims?

The Solicitor-General: I can reassure my hon. Friend. The Crown Prosecution Service already gives very high priority to the interests of victims. At present, the police inform the CPS if there is a risk that the victim will suffer further offences or be intimidated by the defendant. If so, the CPS objects to bail on the grounds set out in the Bail Act 1976. We intend to go further, however. On 9 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced proposals under which the police and CPS will, as a matter of course, gather information from the victim concerning his or her view on the granting of bail, and the information will be put before the court as a matter of regularity. That is a step forward.

Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister not have the guts to tell the House and the country that decisions about bail depend partly on the strand of society from which a person comes? Those double standards apply right into court, as was the case with Roger Levitt, who not only benefited from the provisions of the Bail Act but got off with a few hours of community service following a £20 million fraud while poll tax defaulters are chucked into gaol for six months on principle. The Government are riddled with double standards.

The Solicitor-General: The question whether Mr. Levitt should be granted bail was exclusively a matter for the court, and the question of what sentence should be imposed was a matter exclusively for Mr. Justice Laws, who passed sentence. Those were not matters for the Serious Fraud Office, and not matters for the prosecution at all. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the charge on which Mr. Levitt was tried was a single charge. The Crown wanted him to be tried on a number of charges and argued strongly for the inclusion in the indictment of a number of charges. After the indictment had been reduced to a single charge, the Crown argued strongly for the inclusion in the trial of a wide range of evidence, but the judge ruled against the Crown on that.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that often when offenders are given bail, rehabilitation or parole—or any of the other measures which release them into the atmosphere, as it were—they offend or abscond time and again? If there is a shadow or a grain of doubt,

should not such people be kept under lock and key where they cannot burgle our homes or break into our motor vehicles?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we are abreast of his thinking. The Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, which will come into operation in January, gives the prosecution a right to appeal to the Crown court against the granting of bail in most important cases in the magistrates court. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has recently announced further proposals under which alleged offenders who reoffend on bail will not have the benefit of the presumption of bail. He also proposes that persons charged with murder, manslaughter or rape who have already been convicted of one of those offences will be refused bail. This House and the other place will have an opportunity to decide their attitude to those proposals quite soon.

Dropped Cases

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases forwarded by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service were not proceeded with in 1990, 1991, 1992 and the first half of 1993.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lye11): Of the 1.5 million or more cases forwarded by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service each year, the total numbers not proceeded with in each of the years 1990–1993 were, to the nearest thousand, 227,000, 262,000, 281,000, and for the first six months of 1993, 143,000. These figures include for each respective year 79,000, 93,000, 88,000 and 52,000 cases, the substantial proportion of which could not proceed because the defendant had either died or could not be traced.

Mr. Ainger: Can the Minister explain why, in the past five years when crime has increased by 50 per cent., magistrates courts have dealt with 40,000 fewer cases, Crown courts have dealt with 8,000 fewer cases and the number of cases that the Crown Prosecution Service has decided to discontinue has increased by 80 per cent? Does the Minister agree with the First Division Association survey of all Crown prosecutors that 86 per cent. have no confidence in the senior management of the Crown Prosecution Service?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asks two quite separate questions, although there is some linkage. First, the number of cases coming to court has been reduced as a result of diversionary measures and, in particular, by an increase in cautioning which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced, is likely to be restricted. Secondly, one of the reasons for low morale, in so far as there is low morale in the Crown Prosecution Service, is that it is constantly being wrongly blamed for discontinuing cases which it has discontinued for thoroughly sensible reasons. If such cases are brought to the hon. Gentleman or to other hon. Members, I invite them to ask for chapter and verse and to provide that to me, because in the huge majority of the cases that I have looked into extremely carefully there were thoroughly sensible reasons for the decisions.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: If the Crown Prosecution Service thinks that it is not appropriate to proceed in one in six cases in which the police think that it is appropriate, is it


not time to reconsider the 51 per cent. chance of conviction rule before the CPS brings its charges and also to reconsider the Crown Prosecution Service procedure of trying to accept pleas to lesser offences in the magistrates courts so that many cases do not go to trial before juries? What kind of deterrence is there in a system in which some of the people who are caught have no reason to think that they will be brought to trial?

The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend has great knowledge of the criminal justice system and will wish to take to heart what I have just told the House. It is much better to look at individual cases in detail to find out whether there was a solid reason for whatever course was taken. I have done that, and in a very high proportion of the cases that I have examined there was a thoroughly sensible reason for the decision. To look just at bare statistics and draw the wrong conclusion would be a mistake.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

European Community

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom overseas aid is now provided through the European Community.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): In 1992–93, 21.3 per cent. of total aid.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. While we should not gloat too much at the European Community's expense, does my hon. Friend agree that our bilateral aid programmes are regarded throughout the world as among the most effective and that they compare most favourably in terms of efficiency and effectiveness with those of the European Community? Will my hon. Friend reassure us that, as far as possible, the United Kingdom percentage of our aid programme will be maintained?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly confirm that our aid programme is widely respected for the way in which it is implemented. I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that we shall always work hard with our European Community partners to improve even further the effectiveness of European Community aid. The Horizon 2000 document which was adopted in November 1992 by the European Community helps towards that end.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that, in view of their appalling record on bilateral aid, the Government are right not to gloat over the figures? For the next three years, our aid programme will be frozen at £1.9 million, which is a cut in real terms. Although the House recognises the appalling need in many parts of eastern Europe, does the Minister accept that the Government's response should not be at the expense of other developing nations, particularly those in Africa?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position and congratulate him on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I know that we can both look forward to many interesting exchanges.
I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. The British aid programme planning total for this financial year is £2,267 million. In the past six years, the programme has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms.

Aid Budget

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his budget for overseas aid in 1993–94.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The planning figure for external assistance for 1993–94 is £2,267 million.

Mr. Riddick: Is that not an enormous sum of money? Will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain is one of the most generous donors of overseas aid in the world and has a record of which he and the Government can be proud? When calculating future levels of overseas aid, would it be sensible to take into consideration Britain's net annual contribution to the European Community of £2.5 billion, most of which goes to the poorer countries in southern Europe such as Portugal, Greece and Spain? Many of us feel that that money would be more appropriately spent in continents such as Asia and Africa.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree that the British aid programme is both large and effective. However, assistance within the Community for structural funds is not part of our aid programme. It is true that our aid programme goes very wide and includes substantial humanitarian aid and an enormous amount of help for debt relief. It should also not be forgotten that there is significant and substantial private sector investment in developing countries.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister be careful not to misrepresent the Government's position on overseas aid? The reality is that every year we are falling further behind the 0.7 per cent. GNP target. The substantial increase in our budget relates to the European Community total—which is fixed and in which we have no say—whereas our percentage bilateral contribution has gone down.
I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot anticipate tomorrow's Budget statement, but when will the Government honour their obligation to meet the target of giving 0.7 per cent. of our gross national product to the rest of the world, whose problems are growing and not diminishing?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Obviously, I cannot anticipate tomorrow's Budget statement—or, indeed, any future Budget statement.

Mr. Wells: Is not the budget for 1993–94 an increase on our previous expenditure, and are not the Government to be congratulated on constantly increasing the aid budget, despite financial difficulties elsewhere in the economy?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is true that the planning total for 1993–94 is an increase in real terms on the previous year.

World Bank

Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to take to increase the accountability of the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The United Kingdom executive director of the World bank is appointed by and accountable to Her Majesty's Government. There is no reason to change that arrangement.

Mr. Denham: Is the Minister aware that the World bank, through its structural adjustment programmes, in effect determines the political and economic policies of many developing countries to which we donate bilateral aid? Is it acceptable that this House has no information about how the United Kingdom executive director votes, what policies he puts forward, whether we support particular structural adjustment loans or which projects we support? Surely an organisation that receives hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money every year should give the House information on our voting record.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on these matters and follows them closely—as I know, having answered some 10 written parliamentary questions from him last week. As he knows, the World bank operates in circumstances in which a degree of confidentiality must be respected because it operates by consensus. The difficulty is always in striking a balance between the need for disclosure and that for confidentiality. However, the World bank is now disclosing much more. Projects under

consideration, policy documents, operational guidelines, technical papers and environmental assessments are all made available now to the right people.

Azerbaijan

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government intend to give to the refugees in Azerbaijan.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are providing £1.6 million of relief in Azerbaijan this winter.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend knows that about 650,000 refugees are in Azerbaijan and that many more are in Armenia, Georgia and the surrounding region. As winter sets in, will my hon. Friend carefully consider providing more aid there, where the situation is every bit as bad as in Bosnia—albeit much less covered by the media?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right to say that the region does not receive so much media coverage as Bosnia. However, he must concede that the assistance that we are giving this winter is substantial. British non-governmental organisations are beginning to establish operations in Azerbaijan, and we will certainly consider sympathetically any requests for humanitarian assistance that they may put forward.

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, I will make a statement about messages between the IRA leadership and the Government.
There has for some years been a means of communication by which messages could be conveyed indirectly between the Government and the IRA leadership. Clearly, such a chain could only function if its secrecy was respected on both sides.
At the end of February this year, a message was received from the IRA leadership. It said:
The conflict is over but we need your advice on how to bring it to a close. We wish to have an unannounced ceasefire in order to hold dialogue leading to peace. We cannot announce such a move as it will lead to confusion for the volunteers, because the press will misinterpret it as a surrender. We cannot meet Secretary of State's public renunciation of violence, but it would be given privately as long as we were sure that we were not being tricked".
That message came from Martin McGuinness. I have placed in the Library and in the Vote Office all consequent messages that Her Majesty's Government received and dispatched.
The Government had a duty to respond to that message. I will read to the House the substantive response that, after an intermediate exchange, we despatched on 19 March. The text published yesterday was no more than instructions as to how this was to be transmitted. The message was in these terms:
1. The importance of what has been said, the wish to take it seriously, and the influence of events on the ground, have been acknowledged. All of those involved share a responsibility to work to end the conflict. No one has a monopoly of suffering. There is a need for a healing process.
2. It is essential that there should be no deception on either side, and also that no deception should, through any misunderstanding, be seen where it is not intended. It is also essential that both sides have a clear and realistic understanding of what it is possible to achieve, so that neither side can in the future claim that it has been tricked.
3. The position of the British Government on dealing with those who espouse violence is clearly understood. This is why the envisaged sequence of events is important. We note that what is being sought at this stage is advice, and that any dialogue would follow an unannounced halt to violent activity. We confirm that if violence had genuinely been brought to an end, whether or not that fact had been announced, then dialogue could take place.
4. It must be understood, though, that once a halt to activity became public, the British Government would have to acknowledge and defend its entry into dialogue. It would do so by pointing out that its agreement to exploratory dialogue about the possibility of an inclusive process had been given because—and only because—it had received a private assurance that organised violence had been brought to an end.
5. The British Government has made clear that:
— no political objective which is advocated by constitutional means alone could properly be excluded from discussion in the talks process;
— the commitment to return as much responsibility as possible to local politicians should be seen within a wider framework of stable relationships to be worked out with all concerned;
— new political arrangements would be designed to ensure that no legitimate group was excluded from eligibility to share in the exercise of this responsibility;
— in the event of a genuine and established ending of violence, the whole range of responses to it would inevitably be looked at afresh.
6. The British Government has no desire to inhibit or impede legitimate constitutional expression of any political opinion, or any input to the political process, and wants to see included in this process all main parties which have sufficiently shown they

genuinely do not espouse violence. It has no blueprint. It wants an agreed accommodation, not an imposed settlement, arrived at through an inclusive process in which the parties are free agents.
7. The British Government does not have, and will not adopt, any prior objective of 'ending of partition'. The British Government cannot enter a talks process, or expect others to do so, with the purpose of achieving a predetermined outcome, whether the 'ending of partition' or anything else. It has accepted that the eventual outcome of such a process could be a united Ireland, but only on the basis of the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Should this be the eventual outcome of a peaceful democratic process, the British Government would bring forward legislation to implement the will of the people here. But unless the people of Northern Ireland come to express such a view, the British Government will continue to uphold the union, seeking to ensure the good governance of Northern Ireland, in the interests of all its people, within the totality of relationships in these islands.
8. Evidence on the ground that any group had ceased violent activity would induce resulting reduction of security force activity. Were violence to end, the British Government's overall response in terms of security force activity on the ground would still have to take account of the overall threat. The threat posed by Republican and Loyalist groups which remained active would have to continue to be countered.
9. It is important to establish whether this provides a basis for the way forward. We are ready to answer specific questions or to give further explanation.
It is clear that that message was consistent with our declared policy: namely, that if such people wanted to enter into talks or negotiations with the Government they first had genuinely to end violence—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear]—not just temporarily, but for good. If they did, and showed sufficiently that they meant it, we would not want, for our part, to continue to exclude them from political talks. That remains our policy.
The IRA sent a reply on 10 May which did not constitute the unequivocal assurance of a genuine end to violence on which we had insisted. Clearly, a temporary ceasefire would not do.
Substantive contact was resumed on 2 November. The IRA sent the following message:
This problem cannot be solved by the Reynolds Spring situation, although they're part of it. You appear to have rejected the Hume Adams situation though they too are part of it.
Every day all the main players are looking for singular solutions. It can't be solved singularly. We offered the 10 May. You've rejected it. Now we can't even have dialogue to work out how a total end to all violence can come about. We believe that the country could be at the point of no return. In plain language please tell us through the link as a matter of urgency when you will open dialogue in the event of a total end to hostilities. We believe that if all the documents involved are put on the table—including your 9 paragrapher and our 10th May that we have the basis of an understanding.
Our reply was despatched on 5 November:
1. Your message of 2 November is taken as being of the greatest importance and significance. The answer to the specific question you raise is given in paragraph 4 below.
2. We hold to what was said jointly and in public by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in Brussels on 29 October. A copy of the Statement is annexed. There can be no departure from what is said there and in particular its statement that there could be no secret agreements or understandings between Governments and organisations supporting violence as a price for its cessation and its call on them to renounce for good the use of, or support for, violence. There can also be no departure from the constitutional guarantee that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom will not change without the consent of a majority of its people.
3. It is the public and consistent position of the British Government that any dialogue could only follow a permanent end to violent activity.
4. You ask about the sequence of events in the event of a total end to hostilities. If, as you have offered, you were to give us an unequivocal assurance that violence has indeed been brought to


a permanent end, and that accordingly Sinn Fein is now committed to political progress by peaceful and democratic means alone, we will make clear publicly our commitment to enter exploratory dialogue with you. Our public statement will make clear that, provided your private assurance is promptly confirmed publicly after our public statement and that events on the ground are fully consistent with this, a first meeting for exploratory dialogue will take place within a week of Parliament's return in January.
5. Exploratory dialogue will have the following purposes:

(i) to explore the basis upon which Sinn Fein would come to be admitted to an inclusive political talks process to which the British Government is committed but without anticipating the negotiations within that process;
(ii) to exchange views on how Sinn Fein would be able over a period to play the same part as the current constitutional parties in the public life of Northern Ireland;
(iii) to examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence.
6. The attached Annex summarises the sequence of events and provides answers to the procedural questions concerning exploratory dialogue which have been raised.
7. If, in advance of our public statement, any public statement is made on your behalf which appears to us inconsistent with this basis for proceeding it would not be possible for us then to proceed.
8. If we receive the necessary assurance, which you have offered, that violence has been brought to an end, we shall assume that you are assenting to the basis for proceeding explained in this note and its attachment.
Hon. Members will appreciate from what I have read out, and from the other messages when they have had time to study them, that our main objective has been to reinforce and spell out in private our publicly stated positions.
It is for the IRA and its supporters to explain why they have failed to deliver the promised ending of violence. They should do so at once. Murder in Northern Ireland is no more tolerable than murder anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is the terrorists who must answer for the deaths, destruction and misery of the past 25 years. It lies therefore with the IRA, and with it alone, to end their inhuman crimes. It is for them and those who support and justify them to explain why they have wickedly failed to do that.
I promise the House and the people of Northern Ireland that, for our part, we shall not cease our efforts to bring violence to a permanent end. As my right hon Friend told the House on 18 November:
if we do not succeed on this occasion, we must … keep exploring again and again that opportunity for peace."—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 28.]
Peace, properly attained, is a prize worth risks.
If a genuine end to violence is promised, the way would still be open for Sinn Fein to enter the political arena after a sufficient interval to demonstrate that they mean it. Our message of 5 November spelt that out again. The key to peace is in the hands of the IRA.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the House is grateful for his explanation of events over the past few months, and welcomes the opportunity to study carefully his statement and the accompanying documents which are now available in the Vote Office?
Any sensible British Government must not, in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, be afraid to take risks for peace. Risks are necessary if the peace process is to be brought to a successful conclusion. We hope that the Government's recent mishandling of these matters will not deter them from believing that risk-taking is essential if progress is to be achieved. It is, in our view, essential to explore the

sincerity of the claims of the Republican movement that it wishes to be brought into the political process and to contribute to an end to the violence. This the Secretary of State has sought to do.
We know that the Government have said that all parties must make concessions if the peace process and the ambition of a constitutional settlement are to be accomplished. The Government have rightly said that concessions must be forthcoming from the Government of the Republic and from the Republican movement. The Government must also recognise that they too must make concessions if those ambitions are to be realised.
Moreover, the Government must call upon the Ulster Unionists to play their part in achieving peace and settled democratic government in these islands. That requires the Government to address two fundamental issues which the Ulster Unionists have refused consistently to address. First, we need an institutionalised Irish dimension in he government of Northern Ireland which the nationalists in Ireland could feel addresses their aspirations, just as article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement rightly recognises and protects the constitutional status of the majority in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, we need institutions of government which allow both communities to share power and responsibility in Northern Ireland. Any new agreement between the British and Irish Governments and the parties in Northern Ireland must meet the aspirations of northern nationalists for institutions of Government with which they feel they can identify and which connect them with the Republic of Ireland.
If the Government intend to demonstrate their sincerity and show that they are prepared to take risks for peace, we expect to hear from the Government about concrete proposals which will satisfy the aspirations, needs and interests of both communities. I will remind the Secretary of State of the words of the Prime Minister:
No party and no organisation can exercise a veto on progress."—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 28.]
Provided that the Government hold firmly to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the need for an Irish dimension and institutions which share power and responsibility in Northern Ireland, they should not be inhibited in the search for peace and a settlement which would be acceptable to all the peoples of these islands.
The Opposition trust that it has been thinking of that nature which has motivated the Government's interactions with the Republicans, and that is why we seek to make no party advantage today. The pursuit of peace is more important than anything else. We understand that 3 December is a date which remains open for both Governments to meet, if they wish. We hope that such a summit can take place.
We believe that the Prime Minister is right to say that the best opportunity for peace exists now. That opportunity must be grasped. We trust that the Government's courage will not now be dissipated, despite the criticism which they are likely to encounter later this afternoon. The pursuit of peace is more important than anything else.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial words in welcoming the statement. It is with the IRA, and with it alone, that the key to peace lies. It is for the IRA to decide whether it brings to an end violence that should never have been begun.
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him in the observations which followed his opening remarks. They seem to me to be related not so much to a statement about messages between the IRA and the Government, as to the agenda for those constitutional political talks which took place last year between the four main constitutional parties and the two Governments, and which have resumed under a different format under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the summit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will be discussing together, over the next few days, the date for the next summit meeting. I cannot conclude without observing that I shall base my reaction to the hon. Gentleman's denial of any desire to take party advantage on the fact that no such advantage offers itself to him.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that, if Mr. Adams feels that he ought to have a spokesman in the House, he need look no further than the Opposition spokesman. It remains for those who sit beside and behind that hon. Gentleman to decide whether he speaks for them.
When the Secretary of State came to the Northern Ireland Office, did he consider dismantling the links with the various paramilitary bodies, which links have existed since 1973 under successsive Governments and 10 Secretaries of State? Were those links necessary to distribute what are called the bomb warning recognised code words, on a weekly or monthly basis? Finally, were those links used a year ago to convey the existence of the 51-point contingency plan—described by the former security Minister, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) this morning—to deal with an extended ceasefire over last Christmas?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question relates to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. Perhaps that occasionally gets him into some difficulty—[Interruption.] No doubt the hon. Gentleman speaks for his party as well, but I would not wish to follow further the right hon. Gentleman's point. As to the second and third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is no in each case.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Why has the Secretary of State not taken up the point that has aggravated and exacerbated the situation in Northern Ireland? It is not a matter of whether there is a channel conveying messages to the provisional IRA or whether the Government have had contacts in the past, or have in the present, but that those statements have been denied by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State has rubbished any suggestion of such talks. He has rubbished anyone who dared, at a press conference, to put questions on that to him. When we met him and the Prime Minister in the past week, he rubbished the suggestion again and said that there was no such thing. The people of Northern Ireland today demand that the Secretary of State explains why he issued falsehoods himself, got officials to issue falsehoods and got Downing street to back up those falsehoods.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is being as restrained as he can be at this moment. However, falsehoods mean one thing to the Chair—lies. I would be obliged if he could rephrase what he is saying.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question that everyone in Northern Ireland is asking. Even if the message that he got in February, and to which he responded, said that the conflict was over, surely he would have known after one exchange that the conflict was not over. What has happened? Those talks were going on, but we had Warrington. The talks were going on while the bombing was going on in this city. Even when the bombing took place in the Shankill road, the lines were still open. Surely the Secretary of State cannot think that, after his behaviour, he can have any trust with the Northern Ireland people. If he wants a settlement, the only honourable thing that he can do is resign.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I really must seek a withdrawal from the hon. Gentleman of the word "falsehood". I am sure that he has tried to couch his words very carefully this afternoon, but I ask him to reflect for a moment while I am speaking so that he may withdraw and allow proper order in our exchanges and our questions. Dr. Paisley, I am sure that you will oblige.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Because of the seriousness of the situation, I cannot oblige you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would reflect. It is very important to me and to the House that he is able to question the Secretary of State. I do not want to have to use the powers that are given to me by Standing Order at this time. I would ask him to reflect in all sincerity. I want him to be in the House to hear the exchanges. I ask him, as a long-standing Member of the House, senior statesman and parliamentarian, to oblige the House and the Chair by withdrawing the word "falsehood". I should be most obliged if he would do so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I would like to stay in the House, but there are far too many issues in Northern Ireland that weigh on me at this time. The people of Northern Ireland would say to me, "Why did not you stand by what you said outside the House?", and I stand by what I said. It was a falsehood: it was worse, it was a lie.

Madam Speaker: In accordance with the power given me by Standing Order No. 42, I order the hon. Member to withdraw immediately from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting. [Interruption.] I am not naming him; I am using the Standing Order that is open to me, which is No. 42 and which requires the hon. Gentleman to withdraw from the precincts of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: There is no point of order at this stage. I am dealing with a Standing Order.
Dr. Paisley, I should be obliged if you would see that the order that I have just given you is carried out. Dr. Paisley, I require you to leave the precincts of the House for the remainder of the day's sitting. In that case, I name Dr. Ian Paisley.

Motion made, and Question put,

That Rev. Ian Paisley be suspended from the service of the House.—[Mr. Newton.]

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 25.

Division No. 5]
[3.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dykes, Hugh


Aitken, Jonathan
Eagle, Ms Angela


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Eggar, Tim


Alton, David
Etherington, Bill


Ancram, Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Armstrong, Hilary
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fabricant, Michael


Ashby, David
Fatchett, Derek


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Faulds, Andrew


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forth, Eric


Baldry, Tony
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barron, Kevin
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Fyfe, Maria


Bayley, Hugh
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gallie, Phil


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gardiner, Sir George


Blair, Tony
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gillen, Cheryl


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Grocott, Bruce


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gunnell, John


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hoyle, Doug


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Corbett, Robin
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Hutton, John


Couchman, James
Ingram, Adam


Cummings, John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Khabra, Piara S.


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dixon, Don
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)





Knox, Sir David
Robathan, Andrew


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Leigh, Edward
Rogers, Allan


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lidington, David
Sackville, Tom


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Llwyd, Elfyn
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Luff, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shersby, Michael


Macdonald, Calum
Short, Clare


McGrady, Eddie
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maclean, David
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink, Dr Robert


Major, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Mallon, Seamus
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Meale, Alan
Sykes, John


Merchant, Piers
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Michael, Alun
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Mowlam, Marjorie
Twinn, Dr Ian


Murphy, Paul
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walley, Joan


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Wells, Bowen


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Whittingdale, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Widdecombe, Ann


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Ottaway, Richard
Wigley, Dafydd


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Pickles, Eric
Wood, Timothy


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Worthington, Tony


Randall, Stuart
Yeo, Tim


Raynsford, Nick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rendel, David



Richards, Rod
Tellers for the Ayes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. David Lightbown and


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Madden, Max


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Maginnis, Ken


Benton, Joe
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Marek, Dr John


Clapham, Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cohen, Harry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cryer, Bob
Parry, Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Gerrard, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)






Trimble, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Mr. Peter Robinson and


Wicks, Malcolm
Rev. William McCrea.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Madam Speaker: In compliance with the order that the House has just made, I have to direct the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to withdraw.

The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the Secretary of State accept from our party that he was right to enter into these deliberations? Had he not done so, it would have been a dereliction of duty on his part.
At this important and sensitive time, the controversy surrounding these deliberations should not be allowed to hide the real challenge that faces us all: the challenge of creating peace in the island of Ireland—a peace that will affect all sections of the community, and a peace that will last.
Will the Secretary of State also note that I fully support his statement that the Government hold to the views expressed by the two Prime Ministers in Brussels? Will he further accept that it is not enough just to hold to those views, and that the two Prime Ministers must honour them and act upon them, recognising that time is of the essence? If they do not, the day and the opportunity may be lost, and that will mean more lives lost in the north of Ireland.
I ask the Secretary of State with all the power at my command to impress on the Prime Minister the fact that, unless he takes this opportunity and moves with the Irish Government to solve this problem and create peace now, there will be a backlash in the north of Ireland. It will not be a physical backlash; it will be a backlash of despair that will engulf us all for many years to come.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Naturally I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said at the outset. He asked that there be no diversion from the search for peace. I can readily assure him on behalf of the Government that there will be no diversion from their continuing efforts to secure a permanent ending to the violence. In my experience the people of Northern Ireland do not ask for peace at any price—it has to be peace properly attained.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is committed, as are the Government, to doing everything proper to bring an end to terrorism. The exchanges that I have described show that to be the case. We will not negotiate with terrorists in advance of a demonstrated cessation of violence. If it is clear that violence has been brought to an end, then a party such as Sinn Fein would no longer be subject to a continued exclusion from the political process—once it had shown that it was for real that it no longer espoused or justified the cause of violence. I repeat: it is for the terrorists alone to decide whether and when they will bring violence to an end.

Mr. David Alton: The Secretary of State has made a detailed and thorough statement to the House. Many hon. Members will congratulate the Government on their courage in having initiated this process. It requires great courage, and any Government would be open to the charge of being damned if they. did and damned if they didn't. It is not surprising that the Government find themselves in that position today.
The Government should not be deflected from the task of finding a fair and lasting settlement. Will the Secretary of State reaffirm his commitment to placing the Government's plan before all the parties in Northern Ireland should the present process stall? The Government should not see themselves as spectators or umpires but should continue the process on which they have embarked, which requires imagination and courage, and which the whole House should welcome.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I gently correct him? He implied that this exchange, which began with the message in February of this year, was initiated by the Government. That was not the case.
I reaffirm the Government's commitment to carrying forward the process of political talks embarked upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). I was fortunate enough to take over in April of last year, when, because of his infinite patience and perceptiveness, all the procedural matters had been cleared out of the way. We want to see that process continue.
The process has been resumed since September of this year, with the considerable assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I reiterate that, at an appropriate stage, we will put forward our own proposals about what is most likely to secure an overall agreement, which is an essential prerequisite to any lasting accommodation.

Sir James Kilfedder: There is undoubtedly grave concern in Northern Ireland, and it would be wrong for the House to be blind to that concern. I regard the Prime Minister as a man of integrity, who is genuinely seeking peace and political progress in Ulster, as is the Secretary of State. Will they give an assurance that, despite these contacts, there will be no let-up in the battle against the terrorists; that there will be no amnesty for terrorists who have been convicted; and that terrorists who have committed offences will be pursued by the police?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said. There will be no let-up in the campaign to bring an end to the violence that should never have begun, should never have continued and should not be perpetrated now. The security forces, the Royal Ulster Constabulary with the Army in support, are securing substantial successes, not all of which can be made public, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. That effort will continue, without the slightest rebate by reason of any other approaches that may be made to the Government.
It is necessary that no opportunity should be lost to secure a proper means by which this campaign of violence can be brought to an end. There will be no amnesty. There are no political prisoners in the United Kingdom. Those who are inmates of the prisons in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales are there because they have been convicted of criminal offences. That is why everyone must remember that there will be no let-up whatever in the Government's efforts, by all lawful means open to them, to bring the campaign of violence to an end.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, after the Hume-Adams talks—which were widely welcomed—the Mayhew-McGuinness exchanges


will be seen as very important and comparable in character? Is he also aware that the desire for peace is widespread in Britain as well? Are not the British people entitled to hear for themselves what comes from Sinn Fein, rather than relying on what the Secretary of State chooses to tell us through the publication of limited documents in his possession?
The Secretary of State will know that I wrote to the Prime Minister about this matter last night. Is it not time for a lifting of the exclusion order placed on Gerry Adams, so that all Members of Parliament may hear what he has been saying, and for a lifting of the Sinn Fein ban? Given its enormous importance, this is not a matter that can be left to private, secret discussions and exchanges; it concerns the whole country, and the whole country is entitled to know all the arguments used in the pursuit of peace, which must be the objective of all.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the exclusion order is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I can only express my personal view: I do not think that the country would have understood if the opportunity to make an exclusion order against Mr. Adams had been left unused recently, when it became relevant.

Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this is not the first such approach from such sources? Is he aware that it was his absolute duty to pursue those sources to establish whether it was possible to bring an end to the appalling violence from which the whole of the United Kingdom has suffered—as, indeed, has the whole island of Ireland? Is he also aware that his statement—which makes it clear that there can be no negotiations with people who perpetrate violence—is absolutely right? It might have been in the better interests of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to read the papers before making his allegations.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he was absolutely right to seek, in every way that he could, to preserve the confidentiality of such approaches? The House need only reflect on the problems that are now following from the premature disclosure of perfectly proper approaches, and the problems that may be caused—not least, I suggest, to certain Republican leaders in Belfast.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We had no doubt that it was our duty to respond in the way we did, remembering always that actions, not words, would be the ultimate test.
As the documents make clear, we have at no stage offered to negotiate in advance of a permanent ending of violence. That must be right. I am not conscious of having given any reply to the press—during the daily doorsteppings that are the lot of a Minister in Northern Ireland—that was not justified and justifiable by the facts.
It has always been known perfectly clearly that the British Government have never authorised anyone to enter into talks or negotiations on their behalf. There is only one context in which there is public interest in talking and having contact with Sinn Fein or the IRA: the context of public anxiety that the Government might do a deal with them before they had given up violence. That is the anxiety that has been expressed, and it has always been addressed in every answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself.
Confidentiality is, of course, of vital importance. I very much agree with the latter remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King): I believe that all who have been responsible for breaking the confidentiality of this channel of communication—whose value was rightly emphasised a few moments ago by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)—will have a lot to answer for.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Secretary of State accept that the people of Warrington and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) and I bow to no one in our desire to pursue the quest for peace? Does he also accept, however, that there was a feeling of outrage and revulsion in Warrington at the fact that talks with Sinn Fein actually took place two days—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Not talks."] Contacts, then; I do not mind. Let me say to hon. Members who are shouting that this is too serious a matter for the people of Warrington for me to engage in a discussion of whether they were talks or contacts. Let us call them contacts.
There were contacts on 22 March—two days after the bombing in Warrington as a result of which two small boys died and 56 people were injured, and while one of the boys was still fighting for his life. Can the Secretary of State tell me how that squares with the statement that the conflict was over and, in view of the Warrington incident, why that meeting went ahead?
May I emphasise to the Secretary of State that those of us who want peace and want an end to the killings and the violence also want to know just what is going on and would like from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister more honesty, less hypocrisy and more frankness with the House?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I readily appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for the feelings of his constituents in Warrington. He will know that we met in his constituency at the launching of the Warrington project a month or two ago. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a sense of outrage that there should have been any contact with Sinn Fein after the Warrington bombing. I think that the House will attach much importance to the fact, which I have already made clear, that the response was sent by the British Government before then. It was delivered, through the channel of communication that I have mentioned, afterwards.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Parry, the father of one of the two boys who were murdered on that occasion, has spoken movingly about his own feelings towards the policy that the Government have followed. I respectfully endorse what Mr. Parry has publicly said.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asked how Warrington and subsequent outrages square with the assertion that the conflict is at an end. Plainly, they do not. Such outrages are totally inexcusable. When the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to read the bundle, he will see that the Government have repeatedly said in response to the IRA leadership that it is conduct, behaviour and events on the ground that will determine whether any credence can be placed on what that leadership has suggested.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the widespread feeling that in this business he has acted entirely correctly and wholly honourably, and has very great support? Will he take this opportunity to assure the House that the search for peace will never slide into the search for appeasement, and that


the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains absolute so long as that is the democratically expressed wish of the people of Northern Ireland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: On the last point, I readily and warmly give that assertion to my hon. Friend who takes so close an interest in these matters. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his Blackpool speech in October, the Government will always stand behind the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. That could not be more clearly expressed and could scarcely have been more frequently expressed than it has been this autumn.
My hon. Friend asks whether I will make sure that the search for peace does not degenerate into appeasement. Yes—quite unequivocally—is the answer to that. It is made abundantly clear in the bundle of documents that there is no suggestion of any price, inducement or bargain being offered to these people to do what it is their common duty to humanity to achieve here and now.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware of the real question that needs to be answered, not only here but outside? The Government have involved themselves in a peace initiative which most people want, and from listening to some views in the House, it seems that more people want that initiative to continue than was the case several weeks ago. We should all be pleased about that, but that is not the issue.
The issue is that, in this democracy, everybody has been taught to believe Ministers when they say at the Dispatch Box and outside on behalf of Parliament and the Government that they are doing one thing. But behind the people's back they are doing another, and that raises the question of honour and resignation. I did not hear the Secretary of State mention the word "apology" in connection with this mess. There was no reference at all to anyone's stomach turning.
The question that he has to answer—it will hang round his head for a long time—is whether anybody can again trust the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. The problem that they have to face rather than the question of the peace initiative is whether they will ever be believed again. The Secretary of State should do the honourable thing and resign.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is no question of resigning by reason of any of the efforts that I or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made to secure by proper means peace in Northern Ireland. I am aware of the Opposition point. I repeat that the Government's policy is perfectly clear and has always been expressed as the fact that nobody has been authorised and nobody will be authorised to enter into talks or discussions with people who are responsible for violence or who justify the use of violence.
That has been made perfectly clear in all my responses. I have looked through all the transcripts that are available to me. It was well expressed in "The Week in Politics" on 24 October on which I was interviewed by Mr. Jim Dougal. Referring to the disgraceful Shankill episode, Mr. Dougal asked:
What does this do to the attitude of the Government to a party like Sinn Fein?
I replied:

The attitude of the Government to a party like Sinn Fein is quite clear and it does nothing to it whatsoever. We will not discuss for political purposes with a party that brings a bomb and a bullet to the aid of its political viewpoint.
After further material, I said:
To do that would be to undermine those who practise constitutional politics and it would be to feed the appetites of those who get their way by bombs.
It is perfectly clear from everything that I have said that that is the British Government's position, and nothing has taken place that conflicts with that policy.

Rev. William McCrea: The Secretary of State will bear in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about the backlash of despair. Unfortunately, there is already a backlash of despair in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State said that the Government entered into these negotiations in February. [Interruption.] They were in the context that channels of communication were open. Responses were given in February because of a contact from Sinn Fein that the conflict was over.
Even if one accepts that the Government had to respond to that—and that is a matter for another occasion—the Warrington bomb came after that. Did that not convince the Government that the conflict was not over? Then the London bomb came. Did the Government need more convincing that the conflict was not over? Then there was the Shankill bomb. Did the Government need more convincing that this contact from Sinn Fein and the IRA was rubbish? How many more bombs must go off before the Government accept that Sinn Fein and the IRA have been playing them along?
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said—and he said that the fight against terrorism would continue unabated. The question that needs to be answered is, how can that stand side by side with the fact that one of the leading terrorists in Northern Ireland is Martin McGuinness? Two programmes were put out on the airwaves, but Martin McGuinness was never questioned. He was never arrested. Why not? How could he be questioned or arrested when he was that channel of communication?
I appreciate that the issue is delicate. The House may play around with words, and some may agree on whether it is a matter of talks, authorisation for talks or negotiations. However, this House was not under any illusion on any occasion on which the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box—no contacts had been made.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him and the House that we are not in debate; we are questioning a statement by the Secretary of State. Will the hon. Gentleman now put his question so that I have the opportunity to call as many as possible of the other hon. Members who have been standing?

Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have already had to deal with one hon. Member who breached the order of the House. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said that someone was a terrorist, but he has not been convicted of that. The hon. Gentleman used the privileges of the House to condemn somebody—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully to every word that is uttered in these exchanges. The hon.


Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) is not out of order, other than for the fact that I hope that he will now ask his questions so that the Secretary of State can respond.

Rev. William McCrea: No matter how we play with words, there were contacts with the IRA behind the backs of the people of Northern Ireland. They were not told about them. Sinn Fein knew about them, the British Government knew about them, Dublin says it knew about them and America says it knew about them—but the people of Northern Ireland, whose lives are at stake, did not know about them. There is a deficit of belief between the people of Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State. How will the right hon. and learned Gentleman correct that?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's comments bit by bit. His first remark was that the Government had entered into negotiations. I do not know where he has been this afternoon, but he could not have heard the central point of what I said to the House—that there have been no negotiations, none have been offered and there will be none unless and until the IRA gives up violence and Sinn Fein gives up justifying it.
The hon. Gentleman said that the question whether it was right for the Government to reply to the initial message was for another occasion. It is not—it is for this occasion. It is very much a technique of those from his Benches who criticise the Government to make assertions outside the House that they are not prepared to make here. They have said that it was disgraceful that we replied to that message, and that is a matter for this occasion. I say to the House—and to the hon. Gentleman in particular—that it would have been culpable in the extreme if we had not replied.
The hon. Gentleman then asked why Martin McGuinness had not been arrested. I must tell him—as a Northern Ireland Member, he should know this perfectly well—that the prosecuting authorities are independent of Government— [Interruption.] His hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) laughs. I shall have something to say about him in a moment. He may laugh, but as I know very well, it is a fact that the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland are independent. People cannot be brought to trial unless there are people willing to take the risks inherent in Northern Ireland of giving evidence in court.
Next, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said that the people of Northern Ireland were not told about the messages that I have described, and then said that that had put me in a position where there could be no trust. I do not believe that for one minute. The Government have said consistently, and I have repeated many times, that nobody has been authorised to undertake talks or negotiations on behalf of the Government. I made it absolutely clear that was always in the context of political negotiations. That is what people such as the hon. Gentleman rightly mind about—whether some price or inducement is being offered for an ending of violence. That would be profoundly wrong. None has ever been offered, and none will be offered.
I invite the hon. Gentleman, in the light of his public remarks about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to consider what contribution he has made to stability and confidence. What contribution has he made by apparently handing covertly to a journalist—as we understand the hon. Gentleman did—the document that I mentioned? The

hon. Gentleman might care to say where he got it and how he got it. Rather than tell my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he met him, "I have this document. It is a worrying document. What do you say about it?", we understand that the hon. Gentleman slid it to a journalist. Why did he do that?

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Taking account of the folly of anyone believing that the word of the Provisional IRA can ever be taken at face value, and that any evasion and equivocation by members of the Government Front Bench only presents republican terrorists with a propaganda victory, can the House take some comfort from the fact that right hon. and hon. Members would not have any official confirmation of the rumours that have been circulating since May or June if the IRA's political demands had not been rejected by the Government? May we continue to rely on assurances by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that the democratic process will never be subverted in favour of terrorist demands?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has an unmatched record of resistance to terrorist demands and to the threats and violence that terrorists offer so many people in Northern Ireland. I give him the assurance that he seeks, without equivocation.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that political demands made by the IRA and by Sinn Fein on the Government in advance of any ending of violence were rejected out of hand. Contrary to all the rumours now being sedulously put about on behalf of Sinn Fein, that has been the case. That is why there came to be considerable interest in what talks, contacts or whatever had been taking place. That, and that alone, was the context. That is the context in which I have answered all the questions put to me.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Despite a few of the things said in the House, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people in the House and outside it congratulate him on, and do not criticise him for, his efforts in pursuing a proper peace in Northern Ireland? Will he proceed undaunted, notwithstanding recent events? In doing so, will he realise that those who oppose him and who make life difficult for the Government in this regard will increasingly be perceived to be opposing peace as well?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and take heart from his remarks. I know that he is speaking not only for those on the Government Benches but for those on the Labour Benches and throughout the House. I believe that the House is absolutely at one, that there must be no surrender to terrorist demands, and equally that there must be no relenting in all proper searches for ways to bring violence to an end.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State accept that, while in 25 years there has not been the slightest indication that the British people or the House would surrender to terrorism, there is an overwhelming wish on the mainland, no less in Northern Ireland, for any steps that could lead to a negotiated settlement? The father of one of the children killed at Warrington bravely said that steps leading to peace should be taken, if that could possibly be done, and that concessions must be made by all—by the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland.
While one acknowledges some of the problems that have undoubtedly arisen during the past few days, can the Secretary of State tell the House today that no steps will be taken to stop the summit that is to take place in Dublin between the British and Irish Prime Ministers?
Is there not a strong argument now for every possible step to be taken by both Governments, to see whether there is a possibility of an honourable agreement in Northern Ireland, recognising that Northern Ireland would remain a part of the United Kingdom but also—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said—that the legitimate aspirations of the nationalist community must be pursued, as the majority recognises, by peaceful means?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman always takes a courageous line in matters connected with Northern Ireland affairs. As to his first point, I acknowledge that there is an overpowering demand among the everyday people of Northern Ireland for an end to violence. However, they do not want peace at any price.
Recently, I attended a service for the association that represents disabled police officers, and I attended a memorial service for those who lost their lives in the prison service. The mothers, widows and other relations of those who have suffered hideous injuries or death say, "We want peace, but we do not want it at any price." It is terribly important to remember that, and it is never out of the Government's mind.
The hon. Gentleman asked that no steps be taken to frustrate the Dublin summit. I told the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will be discussing over the next few days the date of the summit. On "The Frost Programme" recently, the Taoiseach said—I speak from memory rather than quoting his words exactly—that any solution emanating from one side alone could have no chance of success.
That certainly represents the British Government's view. We are at one in wanting violence to come to an end, but it must come to an end before there can be any negotiations or exploratory talks as to how parties may enter the constitutional talks process—from which they exclude themselves by perpetrating or justifying violence at present.

Mr. Michael Mates: While those who have no responsibility in these matters can indulge in the semantic differences between communications, talks and negotiations, is it not the case that those who have that responsibility must deal with human life and limb, and with the wanton destruction of property? When this froth of mostly artificial rage has died down, will not the IRA leadership be left exposed for its utter cynicism in saying that it could stop the killing, but asking for some way of doing that while saving face?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the IRA leadership that there is no way that it can save face for its actions over the years? As long as my right hon. and learned Friend pursues with vigour and honour the path that he has chosen to try to bring the IRA to a peaceful means of discussing solutions, he will have the backing of every right-thinking person in this country and of most right hon. and hon. Members.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Cynicism is seen as a very strong suit of the IRA and of Sinn Fein, and especially of those who express regret for the entirely foreseeable and intended consequences of the violence that they perpetrate. That is extremely hard to bear for the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland. Of course duties are placed upon those who have responsibility for every life in Northern Ireland, and they must face up to them. Others do not have the disciplines that responsibility imposes.
Yesterday, I watched my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on "The Frost Programme", in which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) also participated. My hon. Friend asked the hon. Member for Belfast, East—whose face was on the screen, transmitted from Northern Ireland—what the Government should have done in the face of the message. Should they have done nothing, or should they have responded? Answer came there none from the hon. Member for Belfast, East. But those with responsibility for lives in Northern Ireland must make up their minds—and they must take proper risks.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Can the Secretary of State confirm that those contacts did not just start with this particular round but, in the words of Lord Gowrie, contacts with the IRA were instrumental in bringing the hunger strike to a close, and certainly contacts were still continuing between Sinn Fein and officials at the Northern Ireland Office in 1983 when the Greater London council delegation met Gerry Adams for the first time?
Does the Secretary of State agree that part of his problem with the public and media response to this news is not that talks or contacts have been taking place, but that successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, and the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, have roundly condemned anyone who went openly, and in front of the public, and discussed with the leadership of Sinn Fein? They were condemned for doing openly what the Government have been doing behind the backs of the British people and the people of Northern Ireland.
Does the Secretary of State also agree that most people outside the House will not be terribly concerned, because this is more of a parliamentary point. People outside the House will be amazed, however, given the terms that Martin McGuinness used in his contacts with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and they will ask, "Why did not the British Government have more imagination in seizing the opportunity? Where is the imagination in their response that is shown by people like Rabin or de Klerk?" Why is imagination so lacking on the Conservative Benches? Is it because the Conservatives rely on the votes of the Ulster Unionists?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that what the hon. Gentleman would describe as imagination, most of the people of our country would describe as appeasement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—feeding those who, in a democracy, know that they cannot attain their political objectives by the ballot box and therefore bring bombs and bullets to the conference table, to the discussions, to fortify their case. That is what I think that the hon. Gentleman would have described as an imaginative response, but I and, I think, most people in our country would describe it as a disgraceful response.
I believe that the Government have made an entirely proper, and certainly understood, distinction—that once one has shown oneself qualified to become a constitutional political party, one may take one's place in the political arena. As long as one shows oneself not to be able to accept the disciplines of democratic and constitutional politics, one excludes oneself.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recall that he took part in BBC "Breakfast Time" on 16 November and that during that programme he made three denials? First, he denied that there were contacts through emissaries between the Government and the Provisional IRA or Sinn Fein. He also denied that there were talks between the Government and the IRA, and he denied that there were negotiations between the Government and the IRA. Do not the papers that the Secretary of State has selected to put in the Library today indicate that such contacts did take place? If there were no talks, why was his emissary sent off to do the job with speaking notes?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that he needs more than the confidence of his colleagues in the House to do his job and to do it well; that he needs the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, and that he does not have it any more?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have heard the hon. Gentleman proclaiming that for some time. I walk about as much as I can in the streets of Northern Ireland to talk to people, and I seem to get a reasonable and—I am very grateful for it—friendly reception. The hon. Gentleman speaks of BBC "Breakfast Time." It is certainly true that I took part in BBC breakfast television on 16 November. I was asked this question:
Let's look further at what Gerry Adams was saying last night.
As I have already said, and I think the House has recognised, Gerry Adams has been putting it about that we have been negotiating. The question continued:
Has there been contact between people who could be regarded as emissaries or representatives of the Government?
I said:
No, there hasn't. There has been no negotiating with Sinn Fein; no official, as I see is alleged
has been
talking to Sinn Fein on behalf of the British Government. We have always made it perfectly clear that there is going to be no negotiating with anybody who perpetrates or justifies the use of violence. That's been our public policy, and it is our private policy and we have stuck to it.
The question was asked:
You choose your words, I am sure, very carefully. You say no negotiating, but perhaps there have been exploratory talks at some level?
I replied:
There has been no talking whatsoever about what is to be a price, if there is to be any price for the giving up of violence or anything of that sort, which is what is alleged, nothing of that kind at all. We have always said that there is to be no bargaining whatsoever with people who espouse, who perpetrate violence, and that's absolutely the case. Nobody on the part of the British Government has done that or anything like it.
I stand by that. I made it perfectly clear what I was replying to, and I stand by that answer. I do not make any apology to the hon. Gentleman or to the House for, as the questioner put it, choosing my words carefully. Of course I was not going to volunteer that there was a channel of communication, which was one whose value has been maintained for, as has been clear, many years—20 years.
Supposing the time were to come when the IRA were to say, however belatedly, that the conflict was over and that they needed advice only as to how it was to be tied up, am I to have supposed that the public would have been better served if there had been no such channel—if there had been no means by which the IRA could send a message? If that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I do not think that the House is with him. This stuff about "Of course there have been talks—how could there be a speaking note otherwise?" is a lot of rubbish.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I ask the Secretary of State to take comfort from the fact that the people of Northern Ireland—at least in my constituency, which he knows is roughly half and half Unionist and Nationalist and which genuinely reflects the ordinary people of Northern Ireland—want him to continue the peace process. They do not want him to be deflected by the rituals of the House or the deliberate diversions of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) but to concentrate on the core issue of pursuit of peace.
Alongside that, in parallel to it, are the inter-party talks. I ask the Secretary of State to accelerate those, so that they may run in parallel with the peace initiative. Perhaps at those talks he can advise and, one hopes, convince the members of the Unionist parties that there is nothing—nothing at all—to fear in peace. That would create a new dimension for us all.
I ask the Secretary of State to convey to his right hon. colleague the Prime Minister the fact that a lot rests on his shoulders and that, although the Secretary of State terminated his statement with the words
The key to peace is in the hands of the IRA",
it is a combination lock and the Prime Minister holds the other key to that process.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know how closely in touch he is with the opinions of his constituents because I visited his constituency with him not long ago. Of course there is a desire for peace and I will not repeat what I have said about that and the qualification that the people of Northern Ireland place upon it.
There is no need to urge me or my right hon. Friend to press on with the political talks. Those are very important and much progress is being made, albeit in a different format from last year. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that the Unionist parties played a valuable part in that process, as he did himself and as did his party, and that much progress was made towards contingent agreement.
I therefore think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has heard what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, needs no encouragement in the direction that the hon. Gentleman urged. However, in our search for peace, it is no good looking for a solution to the problems that emanates only from one quarter. It must again be brought to the attention of the House that both Governments, at the end of the Brussels summit on 29 October, said that there could be no question of the Government's accepting and endorsing the report of the Hume-Adams dialogue that had been given to the Taoiseach, although not to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: At the beginning of today, some people in the media were making much of an apparent difference of evidence between the Provisional


IRA and the Government. Having seen the evidence and heard the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, people here and outside—in Northern Ireland, in the Republic and in Great Britain—will think that he is to be trusted and supported, and that what he has done is right.
Can I go further and say to those who are not here—the torturers and murderers, and those who make women into widows and children into orphans—that they still have the responsibility, which they appeared show in February, that they realise that the past 20 years and the 3,000 lives have not got anywhere near their aims, and they will not get near their aims? The sooner they bring an end to violence, get into talks and become constitutional parties, the better it will be for everyone.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The message that my hon. Friend has given to those outside, especially those who use or justify terrorism, is an important one. It comes with great authority because of his record of service in Northern Ireland and continuing interest thereafter. I am grateful for what he said at the beginning of his question. I have watched with admiration his contributions to various programmes, and I am extremely grateful for his support.

Mr. William Ross: In his statement, the Secretary of State used the terms "Sinn Fein" and "IRA" as though they were interchangeable and simply different faces of the same creature. If that is so, is he treating all the papers that he published today as coming from and being directed at the same organisation? Can he give an assurance that all the papers and contacts, with the reports of the messengers, have been published? Since the roots of this lie further back than February, will he publish all the papers from at least 1990 until the present time?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not propose to accede to the hon. Gentleman's last request. I agree that there is a distinction to be made between Sinn Fein and the IRA. Sinn Fein is a political party. In many instances, members of Sinn Fein are spokespeople for the IRA. But the two organisations are not the same, although there is a substantial overlap.
The bundle of documents that I have published include the messages that we received—they were mostly orally transmitted, as is clear from the beginning—from Martin McGuinness and others. We think it right to characterise that as messages coming from the leadership of the IRA, and replies consequential of the first message in February have been sent through the chain of communication to the same people.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people will not be surprised, nor wish to have been told, that private indirect communication links have existed for some time? Does he agree that, if eventually we are to get formal negotiations started on the conditions laid down by the Government, the violence should have come to an end? It is almost inconceivable for those negotiations to open without some preliminary discussions of that sort earlier.
Finally, will he tell the House what he meant when he said at the beginning of his statement that the links have existed for some time? Is it true that the links have existed for many years, and if so, how many?

Mr. Molyneaux: About 20 years.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) saays, the links have existed for some 20 years, and they have shown their value. I recognise what my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said about the great value of the opportunity to pass communications in each direction if we are ever to reach a stage at which negotiations can take place.
I believe that that was rightly expressed in the leading article in The Sunday Times yesterday, which said that the time for negotiations has not yet arrived. That time can arrive only when an end of violence has genuinely occurred, but before that, there must be a means by which the two sides can pass messages one to the other, and do it in secret.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the Secretary of State accept that, following the exchanges that have occurred this afternoon and the publication of documents yesterday, the majority of my constituents in Birmingham will basically say, "Thank God someone was searching for peace"? Searching for peace does not mean that one is soft on terrorism. That has clearly come across this afternoon, and I say thank God for that too.
A couple of weeks ago in my constituency, two local councillors from Northern Ireland told me that the people of Northern Ireland are afraid that the House of Commons is not interested—every time there is a debate or questions asked about Northern Ireland, the benches are green. The exchanges and the attendance this afternoon will signal to the people of Northern Ireland that the House of Commons, while it is not the place to negotiate, wants not peace at any price but peace that is honourably sought by all parties.
If we can still, in the words of one of the leaders in the newspaper this morning, hear the sound of silence of the Armalites for the foreseeable future, will the prospective exploratory meeting that was promised in the November exchange to start the week after we return in January still take place?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall deal with the last part first. I am not interested in ceasefires, with their implicit threat of a resumption, unless something is yielded in the meantime. There must be an assertion that violence is at an end, and that must be made perfectly clear.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for people in Northern Ireland to believe that the House of Commons is concerned about them. Today, I entirely recognise that it is abundantly clear for all to see the concern that exists. Perhaps I will be forgiven if I go back to what I said towards the end of my statement. I quote:
Murder in Northern Ireland is no more tolerable that murder anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is the terrorists who must answer for the deaths, destruction and misery over the past 25 years.
We must never allow ourselves to become inured to what might sometimes be suspected—that there is a tolerable level of murder and violence. There is no acceptable level of violence. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the message that goes forth from the House today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I see those hon. Members who are standing and I have a note of their names. I ask now for


brisk questions and brisk answers so that I can call all those hon. Members who are currently standing.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I endorse what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As a member of the British-Irish parliamentary body, I must say that, far from apologising, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister should be not proud—that is the wrong word—but glad that this has now been revealed through one circumstance or another, because this is the way forward, and the opportunity is great.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend—I entirely accept that he is speaking theoretically at this stage—indicate possibly and putatively what might be the scenario leading to the next stage of possible peace talks developing?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Speaking briskly, that must depend on how the IRA behaves. We have made clear what is an absolute requirement by way of precondition. It is for the IRA to say and show whether that will happen. As to the rest of the question, I believe that what we have said in the bundle of documents provides an answer.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The way forward in Northern Ireland is to ensure that there is trust in our Government within the community, irrespective of which party forms that Government in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State dismisses too lightly the reality that there is little trust in the Government in Northern Ireland at present.
When people heard him say on that BBC television programme on 16 November that there were no contacts, and then we saw the revelations this weekend, people lost trust and confidence. Younger people then move towards the loyalist paramilitaries. That trend is becoming more dangerous, and should not be ignored by this Parliament. Will the Secretary of State urge the Government to try to restore greater confidence among the majority Unionist community by reaching policy decisions which will gain their support? Secondly, are the Government in contact, through intermediaries or otherwise, with the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association or the Ulster Freedom Fighters?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the breakfast programme. I have read the question that I was asked, and the reply that I gave. I am not going to describe the character of the chain of communication, but I am entirely satisfied that what I said was accurate. I believe that I am entirely justified in saying that.
Naturally, I recognise the importance of trust, but that trust would not have taken a turn for the better if it were known that I had quite unnecessarily volunteered the existence of a chain of communication. That chain, at that time, was being used for a process which offered the possibility—it is not for me to say whether it was a probability—of ending the violence which has lasted for 25 years. I would have wantonly destroyed that chain by destroying its secrecy.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of trust. As for contact with the organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the situation is precisely as I have described it. There will be

no negotiations with them, and there is no similar chain or channel of communication with them, as has been the case for so long with the leadership of the IRA.

Mr. Roger Knapman: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his statement, for which I greatly admire him? Is it not immensely sad that he should be criticised most strongly by those who potentially have the most to gain?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Briskly, I am grateful. Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Why should hon. Members and the public be denied the full information on the peace debate while the Government are secretly negotiating with Sinn Fein? At the same time, the Government are condemning those people such as myself who wanted to urge on the peace process by entering into negotiations with that very body. Is it not time, since the process is now in the open, that the absurd restrictions in which actors mimic the voices of the representatives of Sinn Fein should be removed? Is that a card which the Secretary of State is holding in his negotiations?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have watched the hon. Gentleman pointing his finger at Conservative Members for all the time that we have been in the House together. That does not make more sensible a question that is based upon a false premise, which is that we have been negotiating with Sinn Fein. That is absolutely wrong.
The hon. Gentleman's point about whether the broadcasting restrictions should remain is a separate matter, and that is for the Secretary of State for National Heritage to decide. I will point to out to the hon. Gentleman that much tougher restrictions have been in place in the Republic for longer.

Mr. Winston Churchill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will feel that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have acted with honour and responsibility in the matter? Furthermore, is it not the case that they were quite right to respond as they did to the remarkable message from the IRA of last February? No blame can be attached to them for the fact that they were less than frank with the House in pursuing the initiatives for peace, with which we wish them well.
Given the Government's prompt and fulsome response earlier this year and more recently, is it not clear that the burden of responsibility for the continuation of carnage on both sides of the water rests squarely with the provisional IRA? The IRA could have peace tomorrow if it was to set aside the Armalite and put away the bomb. Is that not the next step on the agenda?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend, of course, is absolutely right, and that is the crucially important point. We are in a democracy, and those people know perfectly well that they cannot get their way by the democratic process. Therefore, they bring bombs and bullets to give force to their argument. They must never be appeased, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful to him for what he has said.
I take issue gently with his assertion that we have been less than frank to the House. We have not volunteered—it would have been wanton to do so—the existence of a secret chain of communication that has a value which is


recognised by all hon. Members. That chain would have been destroyed had we volunteered that it was in existence and that it was being used currently for the purposes which the House now knows about.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The Secretary of State will be aware of the warm reception which he received earlier this year in my constituency. I must say with some regret that many of those people who welcomed him warmly have a deep sense of betrayal and bitterness with regard to the recent disclosures.
Has the Secretary of State, on reflection, been too economical with the truth with regard to the contacts with the IRA and with Sinn Fein? What assurance can he give which would enable me to encourage my constituents to welcome him warmly should he visit us again? Will the Secretary of State restate the conditions under which the meeting that is scheduled for January might go ahead?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the welcome that I received when I went to his constituency. I am glad that some of the welcome was for me. I thought that it was more for the Prime Minister, who was also present. I look forward to visiting his constituency again.
The hon. Gentleman said that I had been economical with the truth. The House will know that he means that I have been dishonest with the people in Northern Ireland. I have not, and it would be better if the hon. Gentleman said so.

Mr. Skinner: He would have been thrown out if he had.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree that certain restraints are imposed upon the clarity of the utterances which adhere to Ulster Members. I accept that.
I have already said why I reject that charge. In the light of Madam Speaker's ruling, I am not going to take time to say it all again. Time has elapsed and the offer, which was made in circumstances which were perfectly clear and which were dependent upon a declaration that violence was at an end, no longer stands, because that declaration has not come. If it were to come, the matter would be reopened.

Lady Olga Maitland: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his endeavours in maintaining contact? I agree totally that, had he not done so, it would have been a great dereliction of his duties.
Does he agree that, while the IRA says it wishes to end conflict, those fine words are not matched by fine deeds? Murderous events have happened ever since. Therefore, will he continue with his endeavours to combat terrorism, with all the methods at his command? In whatever develops, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that 65 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland voted for the Union with Great Britain in the previous general election?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend takes such an interest in Northern Ireland matters, and is such a frequent visitor, that she speaks with particular knowledge. She could perhaps slightly increase the strength of her case. I believe that 67 per cent. voted for one of the three parties which support the maintenance of the Union as an act of policy.

Sir James Kilfedder: There are four parties.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. There are in fact four parties. I am getting into deeper and deeper water.
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority. The fine words, as she put it, of the IRA and the leadership of the IRA have not been matched, and perfectly inexcusable outrages have occurred. That is why I assure my hon. Friend that the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, with the full support of the Government, will bear down as hard as is possible by all lawful means upon those who resort to violence.

Mr. David Trimble: It would have been preferable if the documents had been available to us at an earlier stage so that we could have studied them. However, I have already noticed two points. The document setting out the Government message of 17 July says:
consideration was being given at the highest level to a far-reaching response.
What was that response, and was it delivered?
Secondly, there is reference to "unauthorised contacts" with Sinn Fein/IRA, in addition to authorised contact. I understand from the briefings given by the Northern Ireland Office to the press that that unauthorised contact included members of MI6, or the Secret Intelligence Service, during 1991 and 1992. Is that the same as the contact that Mr. McGuinness claims that he had with what he called a British Foreign Office official in the spring of 1990?
When did the unauthorised activity by the secret intelligence service begin, when did it end, what measures have been taken to bring the SIS under control, and what disciplinary action has been taken with regard to the officers who engaged in that unauthorised activity?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am not prepared to say more than I said at a press conference in Northern Ireland yesterday, which is that it has come to our notice that there were probably two instances over the past three or so years where unauthorised contact was made by somebody in an official position.

Mr. Peter Robinson: It was authorised.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It was unauthorised by the British Government. Nothing derived from that contact in each instance that affected any message subsequently sent in the manner that I have described to the House by the British Government to the leadership of the IRA. I am not prepared to say any more than that.
As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, a reply to the message of 10 May was not, in the event, sent, for the reasons that are set out in the document of 17 July.

Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be conscious of the deep desire in all parts of the House that his stewardship should be crowned with the success of a just and lasting peace that is not an accommodation of terrorism and that is fully in line with the principles of constitutional democratic government.
In the pursuit of that objective, for which most reasonable people will give him a wide degree of latitude and discretion, can he bear in mind the fact that, time and time again since 1969, successive Secretaries of State have realised that seeking to reduce the alienation of the violent


minority which constitutes the IRA/Sinn Fein should never be sought at the expense of alienating the Loyalist majority in the Province?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend eloquently expresses the hopes of all of us, but it is no good addressing the problem in a way that results in the transferring of violence from one end of the political spectrum to the other. That is what would happen in certain circumstances.
I readily acknowledge the need to reassure those who constitute the greater number of people living in Northern Ireland—those who wish to see the Union within the United Kingdom maintained—that the Government will continue always to stand behind the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental reassurance they need, and it is one that has been given as authoritatively as possible. It is meant by the Government and every Minister.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the Secretary of State explain why he has refused to publish the exchanges between the Government and the Provisional movement in the period before 22 February 1993? In particular, will he give further consideration to whether he should publish the text of any message sent by the British Government immediately before that date?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I can assure the House that the message received in February, which begins the published body of messages, was not one that had been prompted by us or heralded. It would not be right to publish, to however far back I was asked to publish, all the records of the messages sent back and forth by that means of communication. It would not be in the public interest to do so. It might very well encroach upon intelligence matters that, as will be widely understood, should not be published. I shall give further consideration to the matter, but I do not hold out any expectation, or offer any commitment, that I would think it right to do so.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The House has always had a high regard for the integrity and judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend, and that has been clearly reflected this afternoon. Does he agree that the IRA is a criminal organisation, and one involved in the very worst form of crime—murder—and it should be dealt with only on that basis?
Does he also agree that, while it is legitimate to use the democratic process to campaign for a united Ireland, it would be a devastating day for democracy if the idea ever

arose that a group that owed its power not to the ballot box but to the bullet could influence the future shape of political and constitutional arrangements?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is right, and that is at the basis of the defence that is necessary for democracy. It is always expensive to defend democracy, but the country has had some experience of that, and knows that the price is always worth paying. The Provisional ERA resorts to criminal methods and therefore can be characterised as a criminal organisation, and it must never be enabled to influence constitutional development by resorting to violence. In thanks for the kind words with which my hon. Friend began, I bow towards him.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is pleased to know that I appear to be the last Back Bencher rising to ask him a question in this marathon. Does he accept that it now appears, regrettably, that the whole business, from the first message in February from McGuinness to the statement made this morning by Adams, has been nothing more than a political ploy? There has never been any hope of the IRA giving up violence.
Does he accept that what happened arose entirely from Sinn Fein's desire to make political capital? Does he therefore agree that the extraordinary reaction—the hypercritical and naive reaction—of almost all the press, many politicians and some hon. Members today, criticising the Government, has played into the hands of the IRA, has given Sinn Fein its political capital and is giving comfort to those evil terrorists who are the enemies of the House, the United Kingdom and the people of Northern Ireland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It may prove to be the case that nothing will come, and that nothing ever would have come, from the message that we received in February. That was not an assumption that was open to us, in duty, to make. There was always hope that it would, but so far that hope has been dashed. It may be that it was nothing more than a political ploy. All must hope that that was not the case. It was not open to us to treat it on that basis.
The concluding part of my hon. Friend's question related to the way in which the Government's response has been addressed. Yesterday, at a press conference in Northern Ireland, I mildly observed that, from the tone of some of the questions addressed to me, it might be thought that it was not the IRA but the Government who had bombed the Shankill.

Points of Order

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice about the responsibility of Ministers to the House for their actions. How can I ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland takes responsibility for what, in recent days, has been, by any account, a serious scandal reaching right into his office? Today's momentous statement arose directly from a leak to a newspaper yesterday, and it was right and proper that the House should have heard that statement and had the chance to question it, but revelations in Scottish newspapers at the weekend about the existence of certain documents and the statements of the former chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board are in many ways comparable in their seriousness.
It is four weeks since the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board, the largest health authority—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman make his point of order to me, please?

Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the department that covers the Greater Glasgow health board. It is four weeks since the dismissal of the general manager, but we have not heard a word from the Secretary of State on the matter. It is three weeks since the Scottish Office re-employed the gentleman concerned, yet we have heard nothing. The revelations at the weekend, which as I said are comparable to those that led to the statement today, point directly to the complicity of Scottish Office Ministers in the termination of the employment of the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board.
Surely hon. Members have a right to hear the Minister who is in charge of that department, who holds high office. There should not be a lengthy period of silence, with no opportunity for hon. Members to learn what events led to these accusations being made.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House; nor have I been told that a Minister is seeking to make a statement. The hon. Gentleman might seek the information that he requires from the Table Office. If he comes to see me, I might be able to help him on procedural matters, but I should have thought that he, as a long-standing Member of the House, would be aware of how to proceed with such matters in the House.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, the Secretary of State for National Heritage announced changes to the Broadcasting Act 1990 that would allow mergers and takeovers between large ITV companies. Those changes

would raise serious issues and would transform the face of ITV. Hon. Members were not given an opportunity to express their views, because the Secretary of State did not make a statement.
I gather that the House will not debate the amending order before the new year. Despite that, Carlton Communications and Central Television announced today, in advance of Parliament discussing and determining the matter, that they will go ahead with their merger. The immortal words of the Carlton spokesman were that they did not feel that there was any need to hang around, because the vote will go through anyway. That is preposterous and unacceptable to the House. I should be grateful if you, Madam Speaker, would express your concern about the matter and tell us what you can do to protect and safeguard the rights of the House.

Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is aware that an affirmative resolution is required to change the present legal position on mergers between television franchise holders. Talks being held outside do not, of course, affect the rights of the House, and whether a breach of the law has occurred is a matter for the courts. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate the matter in due course.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The proposed merger between Carlton and Central Television directly affects every hon. Member who represents a midlands constituency. Central Television is a midlands-owned company, with midlands-owned production facilities. Carlton is a London publishing company; it is not a producer.
Inevitably, genuine fears are being expressed by many people in the midlands that there will be an increase in the job losses that have already occurred among skilled production staff and that there will be no prospect of the midlands being a centre of television excellence because of the inevitable drift to the south, which is the purpose of the break-up of the industry. The consequence of the Secretary of State for National Heritage not having made a statement is that there will be a dribble of different proposed mergers and takeovers between now and Christmas and beyond, with no prospect of proper parliamentary scrutiny.
This matter affects hon. Members on both sides of the House and the many constituents whom we represent, and before the break-up of the regional television structure, which has served Britain well, there should be proper scrutiny of the proposal.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should raise these matters at business questions. He is seeking a statement in the House and answers from the Secretary of State, not an answer from me. I have dealt with the original point of order. He must now pursue the matter at business questions.

Orders of the Day — Sunday Trading Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I ask hon. Members, in the circumstances, to exercise restraint in their speeches. I have allowed an important statement to run so that each hon. Member who wished to ask a question could do so. I now seek hon. Members' co-operation by keeping speeches short so that each hon. Member may be called.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
May I begin by expressing the hope that a day that has so far seen a good measure of agreement across the Floor of the House will continue in that vein—at least for today's stage of the Bill?
The Bill seeks to reform the law governing Sunday trading in England and Wales. This is a matter that touches directly right hon. and hon. Members and their constituents. It arouses passionate interest in the House and beyond. We can look forward to many interesting debates on the Bill as it makes its way through the House.
The Bill is, in many respects, unique. It contains three options for reform—regulation, deregulation and partial deregulation, as proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. It is the essence of the Government's position in presenting the Bill that we shall argue neither for nor against any of the options for reform, although I make no secret of the fact that, as an individual Member of Parliament, I favour deregulation. As a result, I hope to be somewhat briefer in introducing the Bill than is usual.
The origin of the Government's policy lies with the report of the committee of inquiry into proposals to amend the Shops Act 1950, the Auld committee. As is well known, that committee came to the view that no system of regulation would be fair, simple and readily enforceable and the House endorsed the report's findings by a vote of 305 to 185. A Shops Bill was introduced in 1985 to give effect to that report's findings, but it failed to commend itself to the House, despite the fact that it had successfully completed its passage through the other place.
The Government then attempted to find consensus on the way forward—a search that proved ultimately fruitless. There was passionate support for options for reform but there were passionate antagonisms to each of the options, and there was little common ground.
When Parliament rejected the Government's Shops Bill in 1986, it set itself and the Government a rare problem. Few, if any, hon. Members believed that the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act made sense. Most hon. Members, if not all, wanted the muddle over Sunday trading to be resolved, but there was no obvious agreement about what should replace those provisions.
This Bill was devised to unravel that riddle. It does so in a unique way. It presents Parliament with a choice between the leading options for reform. Each option has been drafted by parliamentary counsel. Each reflects the

policy aims of the campaigning group that supports it. Parliament can compare and contrast the options and, on a free vote, choose between them.
There is no doubt that reform is needed. Changes in retailing and leisure activities have put pressure on the Shops Act regime. As a result, the Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act are well past their sell-by date. Under the Act, milk and cream, including clotted cream, may be sold on Sundays but not dried milk or tinned cream unless it is tinned clotted cream. Fish and chips may be sold at a takeaway outlet other than a fish and chip shop, but fish and chip shops may sell takeaway food other than fish and chips. If Peter Piper was still in the habit of picking a peck of pickled peppers, he could not pick them from a shop on Sunday, although he could pick a peck of fresh peppers if he wanted to.
It is time that that muddle was sorted out. I have written to all hon. Members describing in detail the options for reform. My letter also contains information about general handling matters. The question for the House today is whether it agrees in principle that any one of the three options in the Bill should replace the existing provision on Sunday trading in the 1950 Act. It is not being asked to choose today between the three options for reform.
If the Bill secures a Second Reading, the House will be invited immediately to agree the motion on the Order Paper in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Lord President committing clauses 1 and 2 and schedule 4 to a Committee of the whole House. If agreed, that will have the effect, among other things, that clause 1 will be considered on the Floor of the House, ensuring that all hon. Members will be involved in the choice between the options.
So how is that choice to be made? Clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to bring into effect by order any one of the three options for reform. Deregulation would be achieved through repeals to the 1950 Act contained in clause 1. The substance of the other two options is contained in schedules 1 and 2.
Clearly, there will be a full debate in Committee of the whole House on the options' merits. To choose among the options, the Committee will vote on a series of amendments to clause 1, which will remove from clause 1 references to two of the three options for reform. So if any group of amendments secures a majority, clause 1 will be amended to refer to one option only. That option will then be the choice of the House.
The amendments would also remove the order-making power so that the chosen option and the rest of the Bill will ultimately be brought into force in the normal way, riot through the affirmative resolution procedure.
It is not a question of which option gets the biggest vote. It is conceivable that only one option will be voted on if that were to secure a majority. Voting against earlier options is the only way in which hon. Members can seek to ensure that they can vote on their favourite option if it comes later in the order. Hon. Members cannot fudge the issue by abstaining in a vote without risking that their preferred option may fail by default.
When the Committee of the whole House has completed consideration of clause 1, the Standing Committee will consider in detail the chosen option and other provisions of the Bill in the normal way. It will also remove those schedules that are no longer introduced by clause 1. Schedule 4, which deals with employment rights, will also be taken in Committee of the whole House.


The Government will give their supporters a free vote, both in choosing between the options and in dealing with the amendments to the opening provisions of whichever option wins. The Government have made available officials and counsel to the campaigning groups so that their policy aims can be best translated into draft clauses. But the Government neither endorse those policies nor intend to defend those models from attacks by opponents. It is for Parliament to test the options thoroughly. Within reason, the Government will provide time for this important debate to be properly undertaken, but they will not take sides in the debate.

Mr. George Foulkes: We all look forward to the opportunity of a free vote on this issue. However, from what the Secretary of State has just said, the order in which the vote on the options is taken is important. How will that be decided, and what does he recommend in relation to the order in which the vote is taken?

Mr. Howard: That is entirely a matter for the Chair. It would not be appropriate for me to make recommendations on such a matter.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House whether his comments about the Government taking a neutral position throughout the conduct of the debate mean that they will do so throughout the whole debate or just the debate on the three clauses? Will they take a neutral position on all the issues from now until the Bill's accession, or will they wheel in the payroll vote or whip their people on other parts of the Bill?

Mr. Howard: It has never been the Government's position that there will be a free vote on every aspect of the Bill, as I shall now make clear. I should be astonished if that occasioned the hon. Gentleman the slightest surprise.
On the contents of the Bill, clause 1 introduces the three options for reform: deregulation; regulation, proposed jointly by the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform; and partial deregulation, supported by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Schedule 1 contains the regulatory model and schedule 2 contains partial deregulation. In brief, deregulation allows any shop to trade on Sundays, as in Scotland; regulation would require most shops to close other than on the four Sundays before Christmas, with exceptions for some types of shops; and partial deregulation would allow all small shops to trade at any hour on Sundàys but restrict larger shops to six hours' trading.
Schedule 3 will be needed if either of the options short of deregulation wins Parliament's approval. It continues the special exemption for Jewish traders to trade on Sundays and also provides local authorities with enforcement powers. The rest of the Bill, other than schedule 4, contains technical and consequential provisions.

Mr. Roger Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principal scandal of the present legislation is the fact that it has been impossible to enforce it evenly and properly? Will he kindly explain how schedule 3 will deal with the problem of enforcement if the House opts for something other than total deregulation?

Mr. Howard: The provisions made for enforcement in schedule 3 are set out clearly, and my hon. Friend may be better qualified than many hon. Members to follow the detail of those provisions. To the extent that any of the three options chosen will be an improvement on the existing legislation, it will facilitate the problem of enforcement. But the greater the number of anomalies and the greater the number of questions that fall to be decided by the courts, the more difficult enforcement will inevitably be.
The Government's aims are straightforward: we want Parliament to choose one of those options and we want that option to reach the statute book. We want the option to work in practice and to command the respect throughout the country which the current regime sadly lacks.
The debate in Committee of the whole House will enable the broad options to be argued for and against, and the Standing Committee will no doubt fine tune whichever option for reform is chosen.
Although, as Home Secretary, I share the Government's view that it is better that the matter be resolved once and for all than that any one option should triumph, as an individual Member I shall vote for deregulation.

Mr. David Alton: The Home Secretary will recall that last week there was criticism from within his Department of the Churches, which were described as being strangely silent about moral and ethical questions facing the country. He will also recall that this morning, in The Times, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Westminster, the Chief Rabbi and the Moderator of the Free Churches gave a moral and ethical lead in arguing, very vocally, that Sundays should remain a special day. Will the Home Secretary reflect on how important it is to family life that the traditional value of people spending Sunday together will be lost if there is total deregulation, which he favours?

Mr. Howard: I treat, as I expect all hon. Members would, the observations of those religious leaders with the greatest respect. But on that matter, I did not find them wholly persuasive. There are many different ways in which family life can be strengthened. There are many ways in which families wish to spend Sundays together. Many families would prefer to spend Sundays shopping together than in pursuit of other activities.
I do not want to dwell on my reasons for supporting deregulation. However, it is noteworthy that Scotland, and some other countries, does not regulate Sunday trading. It would be difficult to argue that that has had any discernible impact on the character of Sunday in Scotland. Family life and church life seem to be as robust north of the border as they are anywhere else in Great Britain.
I believe that the law should intervene only where it serves a justifiable purpose in doing so—where failure to intervene would create a serious mischief. I believe that people should be able to spend Sunday as they wish. Many people want to shop on Sunday. Whether shops should open should be a matter for the conscience of individual shopkeepers and shoppers and not for the courts and criminal law.
I shall turn now to a point that was raised earlier. There is a distinction between the issue of which shops can open on Sundays, which cuts across party lines, and employee


rights. There will be a free vote on the choice between the options, but the Government have a clear employment policy and we shall defend that policy vigorously.
Clause 2 and schedule 4 to the Bill provide additional rights for shopworkers. If the House agrees, they will be considered by Committee of the whole House. The rights will apply whichever of the options for reform is chosen by Parliament.
When the Act comes into force, existing shopworkers will have the right not to be dismissed or suffer detriment through refusing to work on Sunday, and can surrender those rights only by agreeing in writing to work on Sunday. That reflects the fact that existing shopworkers are in a special position. They may have taken employment knowing that they could not be obliged to work on Sunday because, for the most part, the 1950 Act prohibited shops from opening.
I made clear when I published a draft Bill in July that the Government saw no case for making statutory provision for premium or double payment for Sunday shop work. We shall resist vigorously any attempt to introduce into schedule 4 a provision requiring premium or double pay. Such a provision would destroy jobs. Outlets Providing for Everyday Needs, which represents many small traders, has said that such a provision would
bring death to hundreds of independent grocers and convenience stores.
It is absurd to attempt to establish a common benchmark in an industry where there are 240,000 different retail businesses varying from large multiples with turnovers of £500 million to single outlet retailers.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. John Hutton: rose—

Mr. Howard: I have given way to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) once, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. My question relates to the impact and range of clause 2 and schedule 4 with which the Home Secretary is dealing. Is it a correct interpretation of the clause and the schedule that existing employees and prospective employees will enjoy a measure of employment protection, but that that employment protection will not be extended to job applicants—those who are seeking employment—and who may be confronted with an employer who says, "You will get employment with me only if you are prepared to work on a Sunday"?
Is that not a loophole in the clause and the schedule with which the Home Secretary should be concerned? If it is right to protect existing and future employees, is it not right also to protect job seekers in the same way?

Mr. Howard: We take the view that it is perfectly reasonable for employers to inquire at the time that employment is offered whether the employee or prospective employee is prepared to work on Sunday. It is possible, as the hon. Gentleman recognises and conceded in his question, for such employees subsequently to give notice that they did not wish to work on Sundays.

Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly suggested that the Government will resist an attempt to put premium pay on the face of the Bill, but he will be aware that the major

groups that are presently trading on Sunday, which include Asda, Argyll, Tesco, Sainsbury, Boots and Kingfisher, all pay premium pay to their employees on Sundays. Does he agree that that will set the trend for the rest of the market should they open on Sundays?

Mr. Howard: I think that that will have an important influence on rates of pay. My hon. Friend is quite right in his assertion.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what he has just said, which was that an applicant, once he becomes an employee, could give notice that he did not wish to work on Sundays? Would not a contract have been signed? How will that work?

Mr. Howard: The Bill's provisions, in being statutory provisions, would override any contract and would make it possible for any future employees to give three months' notice that they were not prepared to work on Sundays.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must press on, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, because I hope that he will clarify a number of issues.
The Home Secretary has quite rightly been concerned with the number of people employed, and who are capable of being employed, by small businesses and small shops if there were a statutory duty to pay double or triple time. Is he not aware that many of us have had practical objections by small businesses and shopkeepers in our areas that the advantages now pursued by supermarkets and hypermarkets will put them at further disadvantage if deregulation of the two major sorts goes ahead? Is that not equally an important matter for the threat to their employees and their businesses?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman raises a different point. If he thinks about it, the implication of his point is an admission on his part that many people wish to shop in large stores on Sundays but do not have the opportunity to do so. That is the implication that is at the heart of the question that he has put to me. We think, or I think—I am expressing my personal view and not that of the Government—that if people wish to shop in large stores on Sundays, for the reasons that I gave earlier, people should have that opportunity.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Howard: No; I must press on.
We believe, too, that a provision enabling all shopworkers to have a right to withdraw from a contractual obligation to work on Sundays is by and large unnecessary. We have received many representations on that matter during the summer. It is quite clear that many hon. Members are concerned that shopworkers may face changes in life that require them to reconsider their agreement to work on Sundays. That is why we have included the provision to which I have just referred, the additional right in schedule 4 to enable any shopworker to opt out of Sunday shop work on giving three months' notice to that effect.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Home Secretary give way on that point?

Mr. Howard: This must be the last time.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, as it is a very important point.
If the House agrees to total deregulation, that will mean that we will get universal opening in Scotland, which we do not have at the moment, contrary to what was said earlier. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because it does not exist south of the border. There are multiples that do not open in Scotland because they do not open south of the border.
Surely the protection in the Bill, whether it be premium payments—and we can argue about that—or, importantly, the right to refuse to work on Sundays, should apply also to Scotland. Will it be possible to amend the Bill in Committee to enable that section to apply to Scotland?

Mr. Howard: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's question totally defeats me, but the answer to his question is no. I will not be the ultimate arbiter of whether an amendment is in order or not, but it is my understanding that it will not be possible to introduce an amendment of that kind to the Bill.
The Bill provides all the materials necessary for Parliament to design a Sunday trading regime to replace the existing muddle. The Government have forgone their privilege of presenting a single-option Bill to serve the wider interest of presenting a Bill that will resolve the Sunday trading issue once and for all.
I also recognise the hard work that the campaigning groups have done and the constructive spirit with which they have engaged in discussions with my officials so that the options in the Bill properly reflect their aims. The Bill owes a great debt to those groups.
This Bill provides Parliament with a unique opportunity to solve a problem that has dogged it for 40 years. Thirty Bills have failed to resolve the Sunday trading tangle. I believe that this Bill could resolve it once and for all. It is up to all hon. Members to ensure that it resolves the issue by choosing one of the options for reform in the Bill which will work and be accepted by the country.
If Parliament fails to make a choice between the options and does not resolve the issue, the country will find that failure difficult to comprehend or to forgive. We shall all have to bear responsibility for that failure. It is in the hope and belief that we shall live up to the responsibilities that are placed upon us that I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: There is, at least, unanimity in the House on one point—the Shops Act 1950 is out of date and must be changed. The question is: what should the nature of the change be? Doubtless, strongly conflicting views will be expressed by hon. Members, and whatever option is chosen will then itself be the subject of amendment and debate.
I intend to offer my personal view of the options later, but I want to concentrate on employment protection. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has said that schedule 4, dealing with employment protection, will be taken on the Floor of the House so that the whole House can debate the issue, attributing to it the significance that it deserves. We would have preferred a free vote on this and on all aspects of the legislation, however.
It is correct to say that the 1950 Act requires change, partly because of the well-known anomalies and partly because the patterns of life and of working life have changed. The vast majority of women of working age work. Fewer women stay in the home full time. The range of products sold by shops has increased dramatically and, similarly, patterns of employment among shop workers have changed.
For the past few years at least, several of the smaller shops and smaller supermarkets have been open on a Sunday. Nevertheless, there has been a strong feeling in the country against turning Sunday into just any other day—and there has been an acknowledgement that, if customers are to enjoy greater freedom to shop, that freedom should not be exercised at the expense of the conditions of employment of shopworkers.
Until now, although there has been consensus on the need for change, there has been no consensus on what form that change should take. Partly because of that and partly for commercial reasons, for the past 18 months the law has been broken by default. Whatever view we take, it is plainly urgent to legislate because it is not right that laws, whether popular or not, should be changed merely by direct action by those to whom they apply.
According to some estimates, as much as 38 per cent. of shop capacity is already open on a Sunday and, according to the latest MORI polls, about 11 million people over the age of 15 have shopped on each of the past four Sundays—not to mention large numbers of people who shop in the DIYs and supermarkets that are illegally trading. Tens of thousands of people are employed in those shops. Indeed, a greater percentage of shopping capacity is open in England on a Sunday than is open in Scotland, even though the restrictions do not apply in the latter area.
Let us be clear about the matter of disagreement. No significant group is asking for limits on Sunday trading anywhere near as restrictive as those in the 1950 Act. The only question is to what extent the law should be liberalised, and on what conditions.
I offer three guiding principles that should inform our debate. First, although it will be and should be for each hon. Member to decide how to vote, I feel personally that it is sensible that our decisions should reflect mainstream public opinion—as far as it can be calculated.
Secondly, the reason why the 1950 Act fell into disrepute was that it sought to make distinctions which were out of date or which could not be logically justified. Whatever distinctions we make, it is important that the legislation be rational, not arbitrary, and capable of enforcement.
Thirdly, we should fully protect the rights of those who work on Sundays in order that we may shop then. For me and for many of my colleagues, employee protection must go hand in hand with the freedom to shop. The two issues are not distinct; such rights are an inalienable part of a better shopping regime. I mentioned that we should take account of public opinion, so I should point out that the view of the public—whatever their ideas about the options—as expressed in poll after poll is that the two issues are inextricably linked.
I understand, of course, that there is always the problem of enforcing in practice rights to protection given in theory. Ultimately, the only cast-iron way to ensure that there is no abuse of employment protection for Sunday workers is to ban Sunday working altogether, but that is not sought by anyone. We are, therefore, left inevitably with the task of


how to legislate for employee protection, while recognising the limits of what legislation can do. It is precisely for those reasons that large numbers of shopworkers want to and do belong to a trade union. That right must be given to every employee to exercise as a matter of free will.
I should like to give my view of the options before returning to employee protection. First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and others who have worked so hard to put these options together. Whatever our disagreements about the options chosen, I believe that my hon. Friend has signally left his mark on the legislation—particularly on the provisions for the protection of shopworkers against exploitation. Such measures and changes as have been included in the legislation, which has changed greatly since its early drafts, are in no small way due to the work of my hon. Friend, of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) and of others.
I agree with many of the motivating ideas behind Keep Sunday Special. I certainly believe that Sunday should be a special day. In fact, many people already work on a Sunday, yet for most people Sunday is a day that is special and apart from any other. In the end, however, my view is that the Keep Sunday Special proposals—although not the sentiments behind them—do not offer us a workable solution. I have arrived at that view with reluctance, but I have concluded that the KSS proposals do not conform to the principles that I have set out: in particular, the distinctions that they make are not capable of legal enforcement.

Mr. Alton: Why not?

Mr. Blair: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I will readily give way to him. Each of us makes our own judgment on the proposals before us—

Mr. Michael Lord: Just to be clear about this: is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's carefully thought out proposals, carefully drafted and introduced as a sensible legal option, are not

Mr. Blair: Yes, I am saying that. I do not believe that they are capable of rational, legal enforcement. I do not say that the drafting is wrong; the distinctions that they seek to make are wrong. For example, it is difficult to argue that video shops, but not record or book shops, should be allowed to open on a Sunday or that people can buy car radios from motor accessory shops but cannot buy anything from antique or handicraft shops. It is not logical to be able to buy a power drill but not a suit of clothing. Such distinctions are difficult to make and, in any case, under the KSS proposals the four Sundays before Christmas will enjoy complete deregulation. Such is the problem of trying to marry up the public's desire to shop with the desire to keep Sunday special. My view—I do not seek to impose it on anyone—is that the balance in these proposals is not right.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the Committee that considered the Shops (Amendment) Bill, which was before the House last year, his hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) extensively put forward the Keep Sunday Special proposals, with the support of hon. Members from both sides of the House. The arguments were aired there, and the majority of the members of the Standing

Committee agreed that they were considered, well thought out, practical and enforceable. I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the Hansard transcript of those Committee sittings before categorically stating that those proposals, which have been put before the House, cannot be implemented.

Mr. Blair: I have studied the Hansard transcript. In the end, it is a matter of whether one is persuaded. I am not.The danger is that we may replace one set of distinctions that have brought the law into disrepute with another. That is my view; I have given it, and it is for other hon. Members to air their views.
Whatever view one takes of the options, it is important to remember that the options will be discussed and subject to amendment, so it may be that some of the problems will be lessened or cured. Each one of us will have to choose an option, but my option is not that one.

Mr. Ray Powell: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson—who attends the Committee stages of many Bills—and surely he is aware that the Government, having proposed a Bill, will sometimes amend it in Committee to the point where it becomes unrecognisable as the Bill that was debated in the House on Second Reading.
My hon. Friend readily admitted that any option offered to the House at this stage could be amended in Committee, and for him to discount any particular option on the basis on which it has been presented is totally wrong and misguided.

Mr. Blair: That is precisely the point that I was making—the options are open to amendment. I am simply expressing my view of the options as they are now.

Mr. Foulkes: I enjoy these free voting arrangements. Will my hon. Friend maintain his support for the option if he does not get his way on workers' protection?

Mr. Blair: I have said that workers' protection is essential. I believe that we will succeed on workers' protection, and I will come to that point in a moment.
There are further considerations to bear in mind. There will inevitably be an impact on the local environment if there is complete deregulation and the large shops have all-day opening. The Auld committee—when it dismissed the problem that there would be an impact on the local environment if all shops were open all day—said that it believed that there was an inevitable trend to move shops out of town. That has not happened to the degree that the committee anticipated. Many very large superstores remain in the centre of towns, and the impact that the proposals will have on the local environment is another matter that we should take into account.
I believe that public have two objectives, which can be summarised as gaining greater freedom to shop and preserving something of the special nature of Sunday as a day of rest and worship. Those two objectives can sometimes come into conflict, and for that reason some limitations on the opening hours of the larger shops would accord with that public sentiment.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about employees' rights, but consumers' rights are long-term as well as short-term. The top four main supermarket food retailers—which are behind total deregulation and the Shopping Hours Reform Council—control 61 per cent. of


retailing. Is my hon. Friend not worried that we will get into a situation where the consumer is totally dominated by a small number of companies?

Mr. Blair: I accept that a degree of concentration has occurred, but one cannot ascribe that to Sunday opening. Over a period, many consumers have got into the practice of doing one day of shopping, and they use the supermarket chains to do that. Of course, that can have an impact on small shops, but it a practice that has developed quite apart from Sunday opening.

Ms Liz Lynne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that small shopkeepers have already been penalised because large retailers are opening? Does he agree that that will cause much more hardship for small shopkeepers in the future?

Mr. Blair: It is a question of balance. People who use large stores do so because that is where they do their entire shopping. They use small shops for something different. If we restrict and shut down the large shops, those who now work in those shops will not get the opportunity to work. It is a balance both ways.
A report was issued by Mr. Deakin and Mr. Wilkinson of the Small Business Research Centre at Cambridge. They found that the majority of those who did not work on a Sunday did not want to do so. They made it clear that most of those who did work, did so for the pay it provided and that there will be many people who want to work on a Sunday and many who will not.
Mr. Deakin and Mr. Wilkinson paid particular attention to the dangers of deregulating without granting employee protection to future as well as existing employees. They showed that some 20 per cent. of current shopworkers had been working for less than two years and 60 per cent. had been working for less than five years. It is vital that we include future employees as well as existing ones in employment protection; otherwise, those refusing to work on a Sunday will simply find themselves replaced by those who are obliged to work. We also have to look carefully at the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) made about those applying for work.
I hope that the Minister, when he winds up, will confirm that schedule 4 will not only protect people from being dismissed for refusing to work on a Sunday but prevent them from suffering any detriment at all in their employment, including to their promotional prospects. The position of employees should be entirely neutral whether or not they wish to work on a Sunday.
We want to see premium rates for Sunday working. The Wages Councils Act 1979 used to specify double time for Sunday working. When the Auld committee looked at the problem some 10 years ago, it advocated deregulation on the basis that employment protection would exist, and on no other basis. Premium pay is supported not only by the partial deregulation option but by the Keep Sunday Special option and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform proposals. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have advocated either the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals or the Keep Sunday Special campaign and RSAR proposals join us in ensuring that employees get the protection that they need in order not to suffer as a result of the introduction of any form of deregulation.

Ms Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that if provision for premium payment is not included in the final Bill, many of those who work on Sundays now will be unwilling to work on Sundays? Many of those who work on Sundays do so only because of the premium payments that they can earn. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be difficult to staff shops that wish to stay open on Sundays, except by force?

Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is right. The retention of the premium pay element is particularly important—in everyone's interest. As the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) pointed out earlier, many employers are committed to that.
There are elements of agreement between the two sides. It is agreed that certain significant small shops should open on Sundays, that some larger shops should open and that all shops should open for at least four out of the 52 Sundays in the year. There is wide agreement about the need to protect employees. The remaining difference concerns the range and nature of opening hours. That difference covers an important and wide spectrum, but it covers a spectrum: the argument is no longer conducted according to absolutes. No one is arguing for no Sunday opening; not even the Government now argue for no regulation, at least of employees' conditions.
We are searching for a way through the impasse—a method that works, that is capable of being enforced with sense and respect for the law and that treats employees fairly, a method that seeks to balance the public's twin objectives of greater freedom to shop and of keeping Sunday special. We believe that that is possible. The Bill should be given a Second Reading; after that, let us draw up a workable framework for the future on the Floor of the House, where such matters should be decided.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I reinforce Madam Speaker's plea for short speeches? Otherwise, many hon. Members will be disappointed.

Mr. Michael Alison: I warmly welcome the Government's initiative, and their imaginative action in introducing a Bill to enable us to reach a final decision on an issue that has eluded Parliament and the population for decades. Now, it seems to be within shouting distance of determination. I believe that our debates on the Bill can settle the legislative aspect, although they will not necessarily decide the real issue of Sunday trading.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the tremendous amount of helpful work that he has done for all who have sought to integrate their schemes in the overall package of the Bill. He has produced genuinely viable options. One of the really successful aspects of the Bill is the fact that every hon. Member can be confident that whatever option he chooses in the Lobbies will be viable and workable.
In an opinion given to the John Lewis Partnership, Anthony Scrivener, the eminent Queen's counsel, stated:
There can be no objection to a statute on the grounds that it is elaborate or complicated if it in fact achieves its purpose. In my view there is no reason at all for rejecting this option"—
that is, the Keep Sunday Special/RSAR option—


on the grounds of interpretation difficulties or difficulties in enforcement.
I emphasise that opinion for the benefit of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr Blair).
Mr Scrivener continued:
Some of the perceived problems are misconceived: others are simply overstated.
He went on to say:
Local Authorities, the courts, lawyers and even retailers are well used to having to deal with questions of the application of legislation to their activities and the legislation involves a consideration of definitions. Anyone familiar with food law or consumer law generally is well aware of such problems—they are commonplace. I cannot see any greater problems arising under this Bill than in numerous other existing Statutes which have proved to be effective. Ascertaining the meaning of such terms is common place.
I think that the hon. Member for Sedgefield has underestimated the viability of the Bill as now presented—with the help of the Home Office—in respect of the KSS/RSAR option.

Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have considerable experience of long hours of debate on Bills, including Criminal Justice Bills. Does he agree that if the criterion for the Sunday Trading Bill were applied to Criminal Justice Bills we would never have passed any? Admittedly, we would all have been relieved of a great burden, but we would never have tackled any of the difficult problems of law and order in our society.

Mr Alison: I agree that any legislation involving any sort of discrimination—for instance, sex discrimination or immigration legislation—will require complex definitions, which nevertheless are in principle perfectly viable and which in most cases have produced effective legislation. I believe that, with the help of the Home Office team, we have now secured a regulatory option that is fully viable.
I must point out to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that in one sense the Government have slightly overstated the Bill—although, as I have said, I welcome it in principle. They argue that three options exist, but no one is so naive as to believe that. There are two options before us: the regulatory option associated with the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the RSAR, and the full deregulatory option contained in clause 1 of the Bill. Surely no one believes that the two hours per week which separate full deregulation from the option presented by the Shopping Hours Reform Council represent anything more than a fig leaf.
If I have a criticism to make of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, it relates to his use of the term "compromise scheme" to describe the proposals of the SHRC in a letter that he sent to all hon. Members on 19 November. The use of that phrase to define the council's two-hours option is almost disingenuous. It is like a judge passing sentence in court telling the defendant: "I have two options—to set you free, fully and unconditionally, or to sentence you to life imprisonment; I am going to compromise and sentence you to two hours community service." That is not a compromise. It is almost indistinguishable from total liberation and it is an abuse of language to describe it as a compromise.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: rose—

Mr Alison: I am happy to give way to my old Committee sparring partner.

Mr Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his own proposals represent a compromise option? For instance, he says that the shops specified in that option should be closed because Sunday is a special day. He would argue that it is special because of the nature of people's lives, but also for religious reasons. Yet he then suggests the compromise that the four Sundays running up to Christmas should not fall into that category. Is that not the ultimate compromise?

Mr Alison: I cannot imagine why, but my hon. Friend has suddenly brought religion into the argument. I have certainly not deployed that argument in my speech, and I do not consider compromise relevant to the context of a Bill which distinguishes full deregulation from the very full regulatory scheme that the KSSC and RSAR are trying to introduce. Anything in between could be called a compromise if it were in any meaningful sense a regulatory scheme, but the Shopping Hours Reform Council scheme really is not a compromise and it is an abuse of language to imagine that it is.

Mr. James Paice: I must challenge my right hon. Friend's assertion that the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals do not constitute a sensible compromise between the other two options. My right hon. Friend ridicules the proposal on the basis of two hours per week—assuming, it would seem, that the shops which will be allowed to open for six hours on Sunday would otherwise be open for eight. Does he accept that, under the Keep Sunday Special proposal, a small food shop—a corner shop or whatever—could open from 6 am until midnight while the big shops would be restricted to six hours? That strikes me as significantly different from complete deregulation, which would allow the big shops to open for those same hours—from 6 am until midnight.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend must bear in mind the fact that, both under the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals and under the Keep Sunday Special/RS AR proposals, the small category of small shops to which he referred will be free to open as often as they like and for as long as they like, so in that respect the two schemes are on all fours. The difference lies in the provision for large shops. Under the KSS proposals, large shops will not be able to open except on the four Sundays before Christmas, whereas under the SHRC's liberalising deregulatory proposal they will be able to open, with only a two-hour limitation in respect of normal eight-hour opening hours. Moreover, as soon as the regulatory framework is abandoned, those opening hours will almost certainly expand to the full eight hours.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield argued that it was necessary and desirable to keep Sunday special—even though he would not embrace or advocate the full KSS scheme. He talked about premium pay. He wants a scheme whereby Sunday can be kept special to some extent, with an associated framework of premium pay for those who have to work on Sunday. I ask him to reflect on the necessary argument that the less Sunday is kept special and the more shops open on Sundays, the more impossible it becomes to argue rationally for premium pay.
If we have the full deregulatory framework or the full SHRC framework, with six hours leading in a short space of time to full eight-hour opening, the time will rapidly come when insurance companies, travel agencies, building


societies, banks, small property and house agencies—any kind of business with a high street presence or deployment—will follow suit. All such business are perfectly free to open now and if the high street is busy on Sunday because all the shops are open, they will open, too.
Why should there not be a progressive development with all forms of employment operating on Sundays? The whole idea of Sunday being a special day will long since have been abandoned in favour of normal retail activity. Why should that not spread to all other forms of employment?
I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will accept that if that happens the case for premium Sunday pay entirely disappears. Sunday will become a day like any other day. Employers do not pay premium pay on Wednesday or Thursday or Friday because some people take their day off on that day. Why should Sunday be a special day? Why should nurses or those in the emergency services get premium pay on a Sunday if it is no longer a special day but a day on which all businesses are open, as will almost certainly be the case once there is a complete free-for-all on the retail side?
I warn the hon. Member for Sedgefield of what is likely to happen by drawing his attention to the phenomenon of Good Friday opening. We have some interesting statistics. In 1976, when the first of a series of analyses and monitoring operations were carried out, 80 per cent. of all retail premises closed on Good Friday—only 20 per cent. of shops opened on Good Friday. By 1986, 10 years later, 40 per cent. of all retail shops opened on Good Friday. Another three years on, in 1989, 60 per cent. of all retail outlets opened on Good Friday. In 1993, 100 per cent. of shops opened on Good Friday.
If we are completely to liberalise all retail trading on Sundays—that applies to the full deregulatory framework as well as to the limited fig leaf of two hours for the major stores—why should the trend not spread to all other forms of employment, in much the same way as Good Friday opening has spread?

Mr. Fabricant: It has not happened in Scotland.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend says that it has not happened in Scotland. I will come to that point in a moment. I ask the hon. Member for Sedgefield to bear in mind that as the trend develops and the Good Friday pattern is followed, the argument for premium pay on Sunday will disappear. There can be premium pay only if Sunday is a special day, and Sunday will be a special day only if there is a framework of strict limitation on the shops that can open on Sunday. There is only one option that holds out that prospect.

Mr. Blair: I would not normally respond, but the right hon. Gentleman has directed so much of his speech to me that I feel that I should. It is precisely to ensure that we designate Sunday a special day that we argue in favour of premium pay and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support us when we table amendments on that issue.
Many of the points that the right hon. Gentleman is making could equally be made in relation to his own proposal. The distinctions that he is making have to be justified. He says that we are keeping Sunday special if we tell people that they can buy food in a small shop but not in a large shop. I cannot understand what is his basis for

making those distinctions. Unless the basis can be made rational we are in danger of legislating for the same type of folly as we have at the moment.

Mr. Alison: I do not want to bore the House or the hon. Gentleman by cantering over old ground, but I must point out that the essential difference between the options before us is that, under the Keep Sunday Special/RSAR proposals, the very large shops are virtually disbarred from opening—except on the four Sundays before Christmas—and only the smaller shops, as defined in a way that is perfectly statutorily manageable and feasible, will be able to open. A great gulf will be fixed between the great supermarket stores that are taking all the business out of the high street and the town centre and the small businesses that they are putting out of action. The fact that the large stores will be disbarred will be a special feature of Sunday. That is how Sunday will be kept special, as it would not under the full deregulatory option.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) mentioned Scotland. When the John Lewis Partnership carried out a survey in Edinburgh only a few weeks ago, it discovered an interesting phenomenon: 100 per cent. of the large out-of-town supermarkets and very large stores around Edinburgh were opening on the Sunday in question, whereas only 25 per cent. of the Edinburgh city centre shops were open. We are talking about the familiar doughnut with the hole in the middle. All the opening will take place in the large supermarket premises on the perimeters of cities while the small and medium-sized shops—the hole in the doughnut—will be driven out of business.
If there is a restricted regulatory framework in England, the Scots will rapidly seek its help for the problem that is looming in Scotland. The Scottish solution is no solution. I repeat that we need the KSS regulatory framework if Sunday is to be kept special and if there is to be any chance of premium pay retaining effectiveness and reality on the English social and economic scene.

Mr. Ray Powell: We have been told that the occupant of the Chair will decide when the options are to be called. To avoid any confusion about when the options are to be debated or voted on, may we be told when options 1, 2 and 3 are to be called and in what order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): When I know the date for Committee, I shall be better able to help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it correct that amendments will have to be tabled in Committee so that hon. Members can choose which options to delete? Someone will have to move those amendments. If the Government table amendments to allow hon. Members to decide, is it not for the Government to decide the order of those amendments? Is it not a procedural fact that the Chairman will have no option but to take them in the order in which they are tabled?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Chair to view all amendments and the Government are free to table whatever amendments they wish. However, we have not yet given the Bill its Second Reading.

Mr. Powell: In view of your last sentence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall get on with my speech.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr Blair) for his kind remarks about my efforts and those of my colleagues. I thank the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr Alison) for his efforts and his devotion to trying to change the law on Sunday trading. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield about free votes. Why will there not be a free vote on Second Reading? Conservative Members are on a three-line Whip, but Opposition Members are on a one-liner, which means that we may vote as we please. I hope that for the other debates on the Bill there will be a free vote.
The Home Secretary openly declared that he supports total deregulation. His predecessor, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a total deregulator. Above all, the Prime Minister is a total deregulator. Does that mean that we can take heart from the Keep Sunday Special/Retailers for Shops Act Reform group of options, and that we shall be supported by Conservative Members because the Government back total deregulation? I look forward to the result.

Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that those members of the Cabinet who support total deregulation are going for a double whammy? They hope to get through the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals, which are the most deregulatory. They will then bring in the Whips to make sure that there are no concessions on Sunday working. As I say, the Government are going for a double whammy, and when the first proposals are concluded we shall not be able to stop them.

Mr. Powell: I agree, but I do not know what my hon. Friend means by a double whammy. Perhaps he will explain it to me later. I accept that the Government may use diversions, especially as they have now declared their intention.
I recall the debate on Sunday trading in 1985–86. At that time the Government had a majority of well over 100 and there was talk in the Chamber and elsewhere of their Bill being pushed through. The Lords agreed to it, and when the Bill returned to this Chamber I was the home affairs Whip. To my amazement, Conservative Members were prepared to vote against the wishes of their Whips and, as a result, the Bill was defeated by 14 votes.
Some of the people who voted against that Bill are still in the House. When we have discussed the matter with some of the new faces, I am sure that the House will once again reject total deregulation and will probably reject partial deregulation. I look forward to the vote on those matters.
Discussions have continued since. 1986 and there have been attempts to introduce private Members' Bills. I was fortunate, if one can call it that, to be No. 3 in the ballot immediately after the last election and I chose to promote the Shops (Amendment) Bill. Perhaps it was not a wise move because there was much work involved and there was a good deal of criticism, even from some of my Front-Bench colleagues. They spoke about unacceptable Bills, but there was advice from the Clerks and from the Home Office. I do not know whether the new shop unit was set up deliberately to confuse or to assist the hon. Members who debated my Bill.
On 14 May my Bill hit the rocks. There were a number of reasons for that. The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) is in her place, so I shall mention that in Committee on my Bill she tabled 122

amendments, most of which were called. On Friday 14 May she tabled 99 amendments and 30 new clauses. I thank the right hon. Lady for that because it meant that the House could decide whether to have the three options instead of the amendments and the new clauses that she had tabled. On 14 May there was a tremendous amount of support for my option, which was to keep Sunday special.
There is no need for the Government to waste time on the current Bill and there is no need for the three options. On 14 May they could have adopted my Bill. The RASA and Keep Sunday Special proposals provide ample opportunity for reasonable shopping and most of the anomalies in the Shops Act 1950 could be avoided. I console myself with the fact that the Government would not have acted at all on Sunday trading if it had not been for the agitation of those of us who campaigned for a new Act to replace the 1950 Act.
We have always been promised a free vote and the Prime Minister has reiterated that during Prime Minister's Question Time. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Lloyd), who is in his place, also promised a free vote, and on numerous occasions the Home Secretary promised a free vote on every issue. However, we have never been promised a free vote on employment protection. Indeed, it surprised most of us when we found that employment protection was included in the Bill, in any shape or form. Of course, the main reason for its inclusion is the combination of the two options suggested by Keep Sunday Special and the RSAR group.
I ask the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield to look closely at what the Government are offering. They should also read a document dated 26 November that I received today in my post bag. It is a report on Sunday trading and employment protection by S. F. Deakin, a fellow of Peterhouse and lecturer in law at the university of Cambridge, and K. D. Ewing, professor of public law at King's college, university of London. It details why the proposals on employment protection included in the Bill cannot possibly work.
Because of the time factor, I shall refer only briefly to the statement issued by Sainsbury on Tuesday 23 November, which the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) mentioned last week during Home Office questions. An article in The Independent stated:
J. Sainsbury, one of the country's largest supermarket chains, was at the centre of a Sunday trading storm last night after the leak of a memorandum which warned managers that a willingness to work on Sundays could affect promotion… The memo, from Colin Harvey, retail sales manager, warns that Sunday working will become 'a way of life' if the Sunday Trading Bill succeeds. Mr. Harvey says reluctance to work on Sundays will not affect Sainsbury's assessment of an employee's potential, but he adds: 'Willingness to work on Sundays will obviously be one, although clearly not the only, factor that we have to take into account when making appointments to such stores.
I am sure that that will be the position with all supermarket chains.
I have worked behind a shop counter and as a manager of a shop. I have been a member of USDAW since I was 16—which is one or two years ago! Therefore, I can say quite frankly that there is no way in which we can protect the promotion prospects of workers if they fail to work on Sundays.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has the hon. Gentleman received the letter dated 24 November


from the chairman and chief executive of Sainsbury disowning the employee to whom the hon. Gentleman referred? I wrote to the chairman of Sainsbury, saying,
Do I take it that you will now be reviewing his career development?
The two are at odds, so in which one should we put our faith?

Mr. Powell: I agree with the hon. Lady.

Ms Janet Anderson: I have a memorandum issued by the joint managing director of Sainsbury in an attempt to clarify that very point. I do not wish to bore the House by reading the whole memorandum as I believe all hon. Members have received a copy. The joint managing director said:
I now wish to state categorically that the Board's policy in this matter is that a manager's willingness to work on Sundays will not be a consideration in making managerial appointments.

Mr. Powell: I must continue with what I have to say, which is even more important than the point made by my hon. Friend.
I was overjoyed when RSAR and Keep Sunday Special agreed to combine their options. I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased at their attempt to produce a realistic Bill which will be acceptable and workable and which covers the wishes of most hon. Members. I must put on record the fact that the agreement was reached to avoid the House being confused by four options. For some reason the three options that were included in all the options that we discussed for some considerable time overnight became four options.
The RSAR group referred to the four major issues. The first was the size of the shop, which would be between 1,500 and 3,000 sq ft. That was agreed in the Committee on my Bill. The second was the extent to which garden centres should open, which was also agreed in the Committee on my Bill. The third major issue was the question of employment protection. The fourth, which we put to RSAR, was a compromise solution for Sunday opening on four Sundays before Christmas.
When the matter was debated in Committee on my Bill, that fourth issue proved to be a stumbling block. The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden tabled an amendment to allow opening on six Sundays before Christmas. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) tabled an amendment specifying three Sundays before Christmas. I tabled a probing amendment suggesting four Sundays before Christmas. The matter was debated for two hours, and the principle of Sunday opening for four Sundays before Christmas was overwhelmingly established. However, when it came to the vote each and every option was rejected, including that suggested by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. That is why the issue was so delicate when we discussed it with the RSAR group. I am glad that opening for four Sundays before Christmas is now one of the options in the Bill.
As the right hon. Member for Selby said, in effect there are only two options, not three. One option is total deregulation—or deregulation that is practically total—and the other is to keep Sunday special as suggested by Keep Sunday Special. Those are the options that are really on offer to the House. If the Government were prepared simply to put those two alternatives before the House, we would know where we were going with the Bill.

Insisting on the three options makes matters complicated. Indeed, when the Home Secretary explained the procedure for voting, I wanted to intervene to ask him to repeat what he had said because it was obvious that even he was becoming confused. However, with your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in all probability we will have some idea of the procedure for voting. I repeat: there should be two options, not three.
We should all remember the protections that the Government have stripped away from trade unionists since 1979. I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and to trade union leaders—especially those who have campaigned side by side with Keep Sunday Special since 1976—to examine the debate that eventually led to the abolition of the wages councils. We must also remember the Government's views on the social chapter and their general attitude towards workers' protection. We must then ask ourselves why, at this late hour, they have included schedule 4 to the Bill.
It is the Government's last stand to compensate their financial backers for the hundreds of thousands of pounds that they have paid into Tory party funds. It is a reward for the further sell-out of workers—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. How long will all the promises for worker protection that were forced out of the Government without mention of double-time payments last? How workable is what is on offer? I remind all those who oppose the proposals that it did not take the Government long to abolish wages councils, and it will take them even less time to abolish that which they are promising today.
The major campaign waged by Usdaw is the only option demanding not only full worker protection for those who decline to work Sundays but double time for all hours worked. That is a Keep Sunday Special proposal, which was backed and funded by USDAW until October 19. On 5 May 1993, an USDAW executive council spokesperson, speaking at the union's annual delegate meeting at Blackpool, said:
I can give this ADM, on behalf of the Executive Council, an absolute assurance that we will go on campaigning, we will go on lobbying, we will go on working with our friends and allies, and we will go on tackling our opponents. This issue is too important for this union to be swept aside by the rantings of the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the profit-only entrepreneurs who have no interest in the trade in the general but interest only in profit in general.
That is why we have spent so much time in the Executive Council statement to ADM looking at the principal proposals for reform that are currently being put forward. Everyone will understand why the Executive Council and this union can have no truck with the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Their proposals are only one small step away from a total free-for-all. The only protection they offer our people is a tinpot code of practice that is not worth the paper it is written on. Some of their own supporters, like Woolworth until recent date, are already trampling over the code of practice in any event. Actually to argue that a code of practice would be useful to shopworkers when one of the main proponents of that policy is in actual fact breaking that code of practice, shows how bankrupt and how sinister that particular offer is.
And there are some deeply suspicious links between the people to run and back the Shopping Hours Reform Council. We have to be concerned that because of the publicity given by this union to their insidious propaganda, and because of our attacks on Tory-orientated Shopping Hours Reform Council officers, they have now tried to buy a Trojan horse into the Labour Party. They have appointed a leading Labour person, Margaret Jay…
There are some very good points but also some unresolved problems about the REST proposals. So we intend to develop our relationship with the Keep Sunday Special Campaign, pursue our concerns with them, and we have every confidence that on all


those issues that we see as being of critical importance, provided they embrace the concept of keeping Sunday special, they will give us a favourable hearing.
USDAW's executive council pledged unqualified support for the REST and Keep Sunday Special proposals. I hope that the House understands why I was compelled to make that statement.
Only yesterday, I received a letter from an employee of Woolworth, stating that he was asked by his manager to sign the new terms and conditions of employment for Woolworth's retail staff. They include the sentence:
You may be required to work evening, Sundays, public holidays or following reasonable notice.
He was unwilling to sign unless he could strike out the reference to Sunday working, and was told that unless he signed he could consider himself dismissed. That is happening before the Bill has received its Second Reading or all the options in respect of the comprehensive employment protection that we have always demanded have been considered.
I doubt that the protection on offer will be acceptable to the House. It is vital that debate is not curtailed. Earlier, the House was, rightly, presented with a long statement on Northern Ireland, but it served to reduce the speeches that right hon. and hon. Members can make to this important debate. Given that, and the number of issues that right hon. and hon. Members want to raise, I shall resume my place—but I had much more to say.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I begin by congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues. I know only too well from my own experience of working at the Home Office the long discussions and negotiations that were the forerunner of the Bill. This is the right and proper way to take this contentious matter forward.
I much enjoyed the opportunity to serve on the Committee that considered the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). It was an interesting experience and, for no reason to do with the number of amendments that I tabled, one of the most interesting aspects was the number of concessions that were made—often before amendments came before the Committee. As time went on, we found ourselves in more agreement, due to the concessions made to those of us who opposed the heavy regulatory provisions contained in the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
Interestingly, that debate continues. The proposal that the four Sundays before Christmas should be totally deregulated differs from the hon. Gentleman's Bill. He rightly pointed out that we voted down that proposal, so clearly we are still on shifting sands in respect of the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR proposals. Were that the will of the House, the Committee stage will be most interesting, for I suspect that a number of amendments will necessarily be tabled to try to ease any proposed restrictions.
I took the approach of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seriously in my own constituency. I not only listened carefully to the views of Churches and constituents, but called a meeting of local retailers only last week. It covered the spectrum of small retailers and large stores, including representatives of large stores that are not in favour of total deregulation. Nevertheless, at the end of

that meeting, there was general agreement that close attention should be paid to customers in reaching our conclusions on the Bill.
This evening, I shall make it perfectly plain that I support total deregulation. It is exceedingly important that we make a decision for a Second Reading of the Bill this evening. Otherwise, we will be left with the Shops Act 1950, which most people in the House would agree is not workable in this day and age. Thus, it seems to me that we have to go that far at least.
It is equally important that we should endeavour to put a lasting measure on the statute book, and I have many worries about that. I do not necessarily agree with those people who have said that the issue is confined to two options only. That is a simplistic view. It is tempting to listen to and possibly to accept, but I do not accept it.
It is reasonable for the Government to come forward with a third option, which is not the strict and regulatory proposal from the Keep Sunday Special campaign and Retailers for Shops Act Reform groups, but a proposal for partial deregulation which would at least allow those of my colleagues who have some concerns about the concept of Sunday being different from the rest of the week, to feel easy and at rest with their own views and, at the same time, to take into account the strong arguments that will have been communicated to them by many of their constituents who wish to be able to exercise freedom of choice about whether or not they shop on a Sunday.

Mr. Lord: Is not the truth of the matter that those people who want total deregulation know that they cannot get it through the House of Commons in that form and that therefore partial deregulation, as it is called, has been devised in order for them to get what they want—total deregulation—by another route?

Dame Angela Rumbold: I would prefer to leave that issue to hon. Members, for them to demonstrate their views when we have an opportunity to vote on the options in Committee. I would not wish to predict how people will vote or how they are minded to represent their constituents.
Any measure that the House now puts on to the statute book should be logical and comprehensible, and I mean comprehensible to all the people who have to make it work. Even were we to accept the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), that whatever one puts on to the statute book can be made to work—I would not deny that at any stage—none the less we have an opportunity to exercise some restraint and caution on the subject as a legislative body.
It seems to me that what we put on to the statute book should be as unrestricted as possible, with as simple an approach as possible in terms of interpretation for those people who will be charged with the task of interpretation. Thus, I would argue that a simple measure which allows deregulation on Sunday would be the best option that the House could obtain, simply because it will not involve a large amount of enforcement or interpretation. I understand the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby that that might not be the will of the House. We shall have to see how that goes.
Another general principle that we should consider carefully is enforcement. Should we put a more restrictive option on to the statute book, local authorities will be charged with the responsibility of enforcing that measure. Local authorities have already made it plain that they are


not especially happy or content to accept a new responsibility of that nature. They—and I agree with them—have said that they would now feel more comfortable with total deregulation, simply because it will be expensive and onerous for them to enforce and to monitor what would flow from a regulation along the lines of, for example, the Keep Sunday Special option.
Simply and swiftly—because I believe that this is a Second Reading of the principle and not a debate on the various options, so I do not want to get into detailed argument about the various options now—I shall make a few simple points about my reasons for wishing to support the change.
I do not think that it is in debate that there are considerable differences between the 1950s and the 1990s. I have argued that before on the Floor of the House. It is therefore important that we acknowledge that people who live in the country today have totally different aspirations about what happens on Sundays as well as on other days of the week, and also about what they may or may not purchase at any given time in a shop. Many things that people purchase today were not available to them in the 1950s; many facilities are available to them today that were not available to them then.
I think it is a quite sustainable argument that, in some cases, retailers have wrongly offered people the opportunity to exercise their choice. None the less, people have exercised that choice where it has been available to them, and today about two thirds of the population are in favour of the general proposition that there should be an opportunity to shop on Sunday. Every week, at least 5 million people are said to visit a supermarket on Sunday. That is a substantial number, and I suspect that most Members of Parliament would be reluctant to ignore the views and wishes of their constituents to that extent.
A substantial number of people who are employed on a Sunday would be deeply disappointed were the House to make a choice which restricted or limited their opportunities to work. Again, the situation in the 1990s is totally different from that in earlier decades.
In the 1990s, and especially most recently, large numbers of women have found that it has been extremely convenient to work at weekends and to look after their small children during the week. That has been possible for them simply because opportunities have been offered to them in retailing work that were not available to them in the past. Sadly, not all but some of those jobs would not be available were we to impose a stricter regime than currently exists, albeit outside the law. I therefore believe that we have to pay some attention to the wishes and needs of our constituents in terms of how they work and how they obtain their income.
I have already argued that local councils will have to implement and enforce whatever legislation we pass. The more complex that legislation is, the more difficult it is for one to assure oneself, and for local councils to assure themselves, that some shops are not breaching the new legislation. That will inevitably involve cases coming to court for interpretation. There will be a great deal of bureaucracy, and a considerable amount of money will be spent, most of it ending up in the lawyers' pockets—not, I dare say, something that we necessarily ought to wish to see.
My final argument—

Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Dame Angela Rumbold: I would like to make my final argument, if I may, because I do not want to take up the time of the House.
People argue passionately—and with a great deal of earnest belief, I am sure—that total deregulation would overnight, or perhaps not overnight but over a period, totally change Sunday as we know it. I do not believe that there is any evidence for that assumption. Indeed, we have evidence from north of the border, in Scotland, where there has been total deregulation for a long time, that Sunday is as special there as it is or is not in the southern part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alton: May I draw to the hon. Lady's attention a letter that was sent today by Bishop David Sheppard, the Bishop of Liverpool, who refers to the Scottish experience? He says that the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland gave evidence to the Home Secretary:
It made absolutely clear that they believe that the experiment in Scotland was not a success and was no model to be followed elsewhere.

Dame Angela Rumbold: If that is the belief of the Churches, it is not necessarily the experience of all the people. It is almost impossible to believe the serious and sweeping statement, which we would ultimately expect to hear in the country as a result of total deregulation, that every day of the week is exactly the same, one as another. I do not believe that that will happen, and that people want to change their habits to that extent. I simply believe that what happens at present outside the law would in many senses be much better encapsulated in a total deregulation measure. I do not necessarily think that that would encourage or substantially increase the amount of shopping that would take place as a result.
Certainly, nothing that we will do on this measure will prevent people from going out with their families on Sunday to enjoy themselves at whatever event they wish to take, or prevent them from going to church. Indeed, if we were to talk on a religious basis—the reasons for keeping Sunday special—and bring the Churches into the argument, it is entirely a matter for the Churches to attract a larger number of people to worship, and I wish that were the case. But it still would not prevent people from going beyond that into the world around them and enjoying themselves by either shopping or participating in any other leisure activity.
Thus, I do not see that there is a great argument that, simply by deregulating shopping hours, we will make a specific difference to Sunday. As I said at the beginning—my constituents are well aware of this—I support total deregulation, and I shall argue for it in detail on another occasion.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The final point of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) that Sundays would remain special despite total deregulation was comprehensively answered by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who talked about what happened to the special nature of


Good Friday when shopping practices were changed. The right hon. Lady's predictions are less reliable than the lessons of history.
In this debate, one is at some risk of getting bogged down in arguments about anomalies that exist under the present law, or which might exist under putative alternatives, and overlooking the fundamental deep and important question which originally led to Sunday trade being restricted. It reflects not the changes of a few decades, to which the right hon. Lady referred, but the wisdom of at least two millennia —that people need a day of rest for mental, spiritual and physical reasons.
It is not the view only of modern doctors, psychiatrists, personnel managers and many people involved in trade and commerce, and the professions. Throughout the ages, people have shared the view that without rest we cannot enjoy the fruits of our labour. Even the slaves of ancient Egypt and Rome were given a day of rest. If we cannot rest, we no longer work to live but live to work. The trends of the society in which we live have tended to lose sight of that. We have been told that God did not go to a supermarket on the seventh day.
We may ask why we require a common day of rest. To put it simply, in our society it is possible to provide for one. Sunday is a valuable and still powerful social tradition. It is a wise institution. As we all take the same day to rest, we appreciate not only our own rest but that of other people. People who want to shop or work on Sundays believe that they do so for no reason other than convenience, but we must remember that one person's convenience is another's labour; we can become so enamoured of the need for convenience that we forget that a balance must be struck between getting what we want when we want it and having someone provide it for us.
In the light of what the Home Secretary said, I am not confident that that balance will be properly struck. The protections for those employed on Sunday—and some people will always necessarily be employed on Sunday—would be safeguarded if the Bill proceeded through the House in its present form. For all the anomalies that exist, and those that would exist if regulation were retained, some degree of protection for those in employment and those seeking employment in the retail sector would be secured by maintaining the proposals advanced by the Keep Sunday Special organisation and the RSAR.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is a little too trusting if he believes that the interests of workers employed in the retail trade can be secured by transitory assurances from transient Home Secretaries about employment protection. The Home Secretary is committed to total deregulation and has made his preferences abundantly clear not only in this area but in many others. He believes that regulation is an intrusion on private choice and freedom of decision-making and he vigorously resisted the social chapter. It is therefore a little strange to hear the hon. Member for Sedgefield buying the arguments of the Home Secretary with such enthusiasm; it seems a little out of character.
It seems indisputable that the law needs changing. The Shops Act 1950 used concepts similar to the wartime reserved trades to proscribe non-essential trading. Clearly, it was flawed, and it was recognised as such early in its life. The momentum for its reform began almost as soon as it came into force. My research assistant is a bright young man called Charles Cohen whose grandfather was involved

in a leading case which became known as the kipper case—the case of Newbury v. Cohen (Smoked Salmon) Ltd. in 1956.
In that case, it was held that it would be illegal to sell kippers on a Sunday if they had to be cooked before being eaten but not if cooking was unnecessary. The defence case consisted of a raw kipper sandwich that was presented to the judge. As it was decided that the sandwich was edible, and the clerk of the court enjoyed it, the case was dismissed. Such anomalies will undoubtedly continue wherever one chooses to draw the line. It is a counsel of perfection to imagine that we can produce an anomaly-free law to regulate this area.

Mr. Lord: Is not the hon. Gentleman getting to the nub of the argument there? If we want to keep Sunday special, we can do so even if it is a little difficult. If we do not, we simply wash our hands of it and say that it is impossible to produce such regulations and so the only sensible thing is total deregulation. That is a fallacious argument, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman. The other argument used by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden was that many were voting with their feet, and that many millions of people were going to the shops. Certainly, if shops are available and open on Sunday there is no doubt that their convenience is sufficient to attract people.
There are some people for whom the non-availability of shops on Sunday can definitely provide genuine hardship. I acknowledge that. There are numbers of single mothers, for example, who are working on other days and who find it difficult to get to the shops on those days. Those people have genuine problems and genuine needs. We have to strike a balance.
Excluding, for the purposes of the debate, all arguments about religious norms, we must consider where the balance of public interest lies. The argument cannot be confined just to what happens to those shop workers who have to remain in their places to serve those who want hie convenience of shopping on Sunday. We must recognise that there are many activities associated with the fact that the shops are open which would also have to multiply. We would expect greater policing and greater shopping inspection to take place. We would also expect, if shops are to become more universally open, much more refuse collection on Sundays.
We would expect also to see a substantial increase in the volume of traffic, and I wish to comment on that. I believe that, on Sunday, people in cities, or people who are trying to leave cities to enjoy a day of leisure and recreation in the countryside, will face increasing unpleasantness. I do not know whether it is expected that public transport will take up the additional traffic engendered by the new Sunday shopping habits following total deregulation, but I doubt it. There will be a sea of cars on the road, and queues will stretch out into the suburbs and the countryside. Of course, there is the option to stay at home, but the quality of life will not be enhanced if that additional traffic is engendered.

Mr. Luff: It is not just the freedom of shoppers that we must bear in mind. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the freedom of those people on whose lives traffic has a major impact. The hon. Gentleman's words will be particularly welcome to those who live near major supermarkets located in residential areas and who, even if


they choose to stay at home, will have the imposition of cars and lorries thundering past their homes on not six but seven days a week.

Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was drawing attention to those people who perhaps do not want to shop at all but who are not unaffected by the activity of those who do. I was talking also about the balance of convenience.
The nature of Sunday has already changed, in advance of the proposed change of law, so that Sunday is a much less restful day than many who are concerned about the health of the nation would wish.

Mr. Alton: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend? Within my constituency, in the Allerton road area, a law-breaking branch of Woolworth's has made life intolerable for those living in the terraced streets alongside. Despite petitions been to Kingfisher, the owners of the chain, no action has been taken. My hon. Friend is right to state that the lives of people who live around the massive supermarkets and hypermarkets could be made miserable.

Mr. Maclennan: I agree with my hon. Friend, as is so often the case.
There is a further point. If one is to judge the matter in terms of consumer advantage, one must look at more than just the availability of goods on a counter on a particular day of the week. One must look at the long-term effect of shopping and retailing patterns.
From the avalanche of briefings that have landed on my desk from shops of varying sizes, I have observed that no one expects the proposal to have a neutral effect on the shops. It is clear that most of those in the retail business consider the volume of trade to be constant. The proposal will mean a rearrangement of the business between the companies concerned.
Most of those concerned about the matter believe that total deregulation, or deregulation of the type advocated by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, would result in some loss of that total volume to the small businesses because small shops tend to provide what might be regarded as goods which it is necessary to acquire, including things which may be needed in the event of a medical or other emergency on a Sunday. Changes in those trends would be highly disadvantageous. I cannot in conscience vote for a measure which will damage small corner shops, which shops are at some risk of being lost in any event because of the trends in shopping habits.
It is not just the smaller shops which expect that their market share would be adversely affected by the proposed changes. The multiples, which provide a great deal of liveliness in the centres of the shopping districts of our towns and cities, also believe that. I hold no brief for any particular type of shop—I believe that they all have something to offer—but one cannot suggest that the impact of the proposed change would be neutral.
One has to acknowledge that firms such as the John Lewis Partnership have been profoundly sensible about the prospects for their businesses if the changes were made. I noticed that one statement from the group said:
In the event of deregulation, the public would end up paying more for their retail service to cover the additional costs incurred. And since Sunday would in time become one of the two busiest days of the week, shops that wished to remain closed would do

so only at a cost. We should have to reckon that we would, against our will, be obliged to open on Sundays; not necessarily everywhere, not at once, but pretty generally in due course.
The additional cost of shopping is certainly a factor that one would want to take into account. It is not something that manifests itself under the present anomalous law because the shops have to bear in mind the prices available in other shops, but that becomes less true if one sector of the market vastly increases its market share.
I listened to the Home Secretary's speech and I would have greatly enjoyed it if he had felt able to give a more personal view about the matter. He was absolutely candid about his headline view of total deregulation legislation, but what led him to that position? Whether he felt that he was defending consumer interests, or whether he was defending the principle of the free market for seven days a week was less clear.

Mr. Howard: Surely the hon. Gentleman would not want to put a false antithesis before the House. The free market is the best protection for the consumer.

Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary has confirmed his reputation as a man who deals in slogans. That intervention was quite helpful. I know that he and his colleagues intend to have a bonfire of regulations and we all look forward to the impact of that on consumer safety, on consumer standards and on many of the other measures passed, with the protection of the consumer in mind, by his Government and Governments of very different hues.
The Minister whose views on this most closely agree with mine is of equal or perhaps of even greater seniority than the Home Secretary—the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He and his wife happen to be constituents of mine and he has viewed those matters with great wisdom—the wisdom of ages. I share his judgment that it would be folly for England and Wales to follow the path of Scotland.
It is a misrepresentation to suggest that we would be moving to the Scottish pattern if we legislated in the manner recommended by the Home Secretary. Shopping patterns in Scotland are very different from those in England. Only 25 per cent. of the shops in Scotland are open on Sunday, under a legal regime, whereas even today, under the existing laws, some 38 per cent. of the shops in England and Wales are open on a Sunday. A London economist has predicted that 65 per cent. of English and Welsh food retailers would open in a completely deregulated Sunday market.
There are several reasons for the differences. First, Scotland is much less densely populated and the incidence of car ownership is lower, which means that shopping involves greater travel and expense and thus there is much less convenience, relatively, in Sunday shopping. There is much higher church attendance on Sunday and there is apparently more emphasis on family life on Sundays. I cannot account for that difference of practice, but it is recognisable and the law must be judged against that background.
The large multiples do not have a significant presence in Scotland while they dominate the scene in England. There are 651 hypermarkets in England and Wales and only 49 in Scotland. Scottish retailers face relatively lower fixed costs, most notably the cost of property, but relatively higher marginal costs, in energy and wages, than in England, which means that longer hours are less profitable.
Costs would rise notably for retailers if they had to maintain shop opening seven days a week. Costs will not be reduced by the need to make premium payments to those who work on Sundays. They are more likely to be taken account of in rising prices for those who shop, so even on the narrow question of consumer interest the case for an extension of shopping hours on Sundays does not seem to be made.
Having said that, I do not put forward the alternative as the last word in sense. It is a patent compromise. It does not rest on an absolute principle. It is impossible to defend a proposal that advocates four open shopping Sundays before Christmas as founded on a solid bedrock of principle. It is a compromise designed to meet the interests of the groups involved—which have applied themselves most carefully to the problem—around which we can find it easy to unite.
Whatever we may do with the Bill, it will not become like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. It will not necessarily remain unchanged for another 40 or 50 years. It can be amended to take account of changing social attitudes and economic practices. It seems to me good enough for today and certainly a great deal better for today than the free-for-all that has the support of the Home Secretary.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I warmly welcome the Bill. For too long the anomalies of the Shops Act 1950 have been allowed to create confusion. I do not intend to debate the generalities of Sunday trading. I am mindful of Madam Speaker's plea for brief speeches, so I shall restrict myself to one issue—what will happen to garden centres as a result of the Bill in whichever form it becomes law.
I represent a constituency with a long horticultural history. I am chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench horticulture committee, and I also have the honour to be the parliamentary consultant for the Horticultural Trades Association.
The law allows garden centres to open on Sunday for the sale of certain specified gardening goods. There is no doubt about the importance that trading on a Sunday has for garden centres, both large and small. The annual turnover of horticultural retailing between the years 1991 and 1992 was some £800 million, of which 40 per cent. was earned on Sundays. That means that Sunday trading was worth some £320 million to the industry in those years. That not only represents a significant amount of economic activity but creates many thousands of jobs for people who actively seek to work on a Sunday through their own free choice.
As garden centres have grown in number and popularity from the 1970s, they have developed into a wholly different entity. They have become a leisure venue for many people. The range of products that they sell has expanded greatly and now include such items as pottery, books, pet food, and—important at the moment—Christmas decorations.
By selling that wider range of goods, many garden centres are breaking the law, but many local authorities have turned a blind eye to the sale of goods unauthorised under the 1950 Act. However, some have acted to prevent certain garden centres from trading to their full potential on Sundays. I think that everyone believes that garden centres

should open on Sundays. I have had many conversations with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on that point and I believe that we are agreed on it.
What people find hard to accept is why items that they have come to expect garden centres to sell should be on sale for six days in the week but not on the seventh. It all seems artificially restrictive, especially as Sunday is the day when most people visit garden centres. It is important that, with the Bill, we sort out the situation once and for all.
The millions of people who visit garden centres each Sunday, and the thousands who work in them, need to be reassured that what they do, they do legitimately. The legislation that we introduce must be sufficiently comprehensive and flexible to accommodate current and future anomalies. I am concerned that one of the options—regulation—will adversely affect many larger garden centres and lead to great practical difficulties. Garden centre shops would have to be arranged not according to what is best from a commercial point of view but rather to meet the administrative needs resulting from the necessity to cordon off certain goods each Sunday. That is an unnecessary restriction on their trade at a time when we are trying to reduce burdens on our businesses.
The House will select its preferred option, but no matter which the House chooses, there are three specific technical issues relating to garden centres that I would wish to be addressed. It is important to recognise that a number of businesses such as garden centres have been trading legitimately on Sundays for many years. They have adopted trading practices that best suit their business. Any new legislation should not adversely affect such companies. If it did, that would be a retrograde step. Even those options that are viewed as deregulation for many shops may lead to more regulation for garden centres.
I have three concerns about extra regulation on garden centres. The first relates to restrictions on the hours of opening. Garden centres have a seasonal trade. The vast majority of their income is earned between Easter and June, when people are actively gardening. It is vital that, during those few months, garden centres seize every opportunity to maximise their income. They need to trade in as many daylight hours as possible. A restriction to six or eight hours on a Sunday—normally the busiest day of their week—would damage the industry. The busy months are counterbalanced by months such as January and February when trade is slack and there is less pressure to open for such long hours. The proposal to permit opening hours should be flexible enough to reflect the fact that certain businesses are seasonal and need to open for longer on certain Sundays.
My second concern is about the paying of premium wages for Sunday working. Under current legislation, most garden centres already open on Sundays, and have done so for many years. Staff recruitment has always been on the basis that the business operates seven days a week and that there will need to be some Sunday working. That is reflected in the wages and conditions offered to staff when they are employed. Therefore, the garden centre industry has already built into its system premium wages for Sunday working.
Profits at garden centres will not support the imposition of compulsory double time and time off in lieu of Sunday working. Introducing that for garden centres that have operated successfully on Sundays for many years would be


a retrograde step and would inflict unnecessary extra costs. Rather than encouraging Sunday opening, in many instances it might force closure.

Mr. Miller: The hon. Lady said that garden centres have built the equivalent of premium rates into their terms and conditions, which—I hope that I am not putting words in her mouth—reflect a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. What are average earnings in the garden centre industry, and how do they compare with those of the other shops that have been referred to in the debate?

Mrs. Roe: I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman that detail because there is quite a lot of part-time work in garden centres. I shall provide him with the information, which I think he will find supports my point.
The final issue that I want to raise relates to the one that I have just mentioned. Provisions for opting out of Sunday working will also damage garden centres, which for many years have operated a successful system of employing staff to work on Sundays. Garden centres are normally small businesses that employ a few staff. Unlike larger retailers, they simply do not have the flexibility to cope with such a provision within a small operating team.
I do not think that there is much objection among the garden centre industry to giving existing staff the single opportunity to opt out on the passing of the Bill, but to allow the option to run indefinitely could certainly wreck managers' ability to plan and run their businesses efficiently.
I hope that the House will consider ensuring that small businesses are not penalised by being burdened by regulations appropriate to larger companies but inappropriate to smaller ones. I welcome the opportunity to consider the issue of Sunday trading, but I urge the House to ensure that we do not burden smaller businesses such as garden centres with more regulation at a time when the ethos of Government is to move towards deregulation.
Companies that have been successfully trading legitimately on Sundays should not be forced to close as a result of new regulations introduced under the Bill.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I begin with a word, across the Floor, of appreciation to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). It was both helpful to the House and very timely for him to quote the lucid and incisive opinion of Anthony Scrivener QC, a distinguished former chairman of the Bar Council, on one of the options provided in the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman said, Anthony Scrivener effectively demolished the claim that the Keep Sunday Special/Retailers for Shops Act Reform option presents any particular difficulties of interpretation or enforcement. Anyone who still believes that fallacious claim should hasten to read Anthony Scrivener's compellingly persuasive opinion.
One hon. Member has so far declared an interest in the debate and I want to inform the House of mine. I have the honour to be sponsored by the Co-operative Movement. In declaring that interest, I declare also my pride in being sponsored by a movement whose traditions are among the most admirable this country has to offer. The Co-operative Movement will celebrate its 150th anniversary next year and, as the anniversary approaches, I am sure that right

hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will congratulate the movement on its achievements worldwide. There are now 700 million co-operators across the world.
Today's debate is not mainly about how, but whether we should amend the Sunday trading law. It is not about the options for change the Bill offers, but whether we should proceed at all to amend the Shops Act 1950. The Bill offers the means of tackling a mess that gets messier every week and, for my part, I am in no doubt that we should amend the Act providing adequate safeguards for working people can be secured.
We should amend the Act in a way that respects the special nature of Sunday while allowing a reasonable range of activities to be pursued. I entirely agree with the letter in The Times today from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, the Chief Rabbi and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council, and I offer no apology for making further reference to their letter. They write:
Commercial pressures already loom large enough in our society. Sunday affords space for the nurture of other values, pursuits and dimensions… we believe that the spirituai, psychological and physical health of our nation would be poorer if there were no longer one common day in the week which was substantially different from the rest.
I also agree with the Bishop of Manchester, who says in a letter I received from him today:
One person's freedom to shop means another person's obligation to work. Even if the legislation proposes safeguards against Sunday working, the creation of a commercial climate in which Sunday trading becomes a competitive necessity will mean unbearable pressure on individuals and organisations.
However, my principal reason for intervening on Second Reading is to comment very briefly on the deeply serious effects of illegal Sunday trading on law and order policies. Over recent years, a growing number of major companies have decided blatantly to ignore the Shops Act. There are people who believe that, but for the BBC's public service broadcasting role—such is the huge advertising revenue these companies dispose of—there would have been scant if any media coverage of their malfeasance. They have acted, and persist in acting, in straight defiance of the law. They have taken the law into their own hands by trading illegally, and make not the merest apology for iaw-breaking on a massive scale. They have been even luckier than Roger Levitt.
Their conduct debases the law and is grossly contemptuous of Parliament at a time when the Government say that law and order is their priority of priorities. The public reaction is that there is one law for the rich private multiple and another for their poor consumers, who may buy illegally but must not shoplift from the law-breaking retailer—even on a Sunday. How can parliamentarians, in any part of this House, who make the law and work to uphold the rule of law by discouraging crime, even think of condoning law breaking by major companies on the present scale?
What the Home Secretary must tell us unequivocally today is that, whichever option for reforming the Shops Act 1950 is approved by the House, it will be very strictly enforced. Otherwise, shall we not be wasting our time in debating the options in the Bill? We need to know also whether the Government have sought any undertaking from powerful law-breaking traders, such as Sainsbury and Safeway, that their stores will not open in defiance of the law if the joint KSS/RSAR option is approved by this House. Has any such undertaking been sought? That


question is of crucial importance to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and must be answered by the end of this debate.
Allegations in The Sunday Times of "price coordination" by Sainsbury, Safeway and others, and their attempts to stop the American cut-price food store, Costco, from opening in Thurrock, show how determined these chains are either to break the law or to buy access to it beyond the means of others, whenever it serves to protect or increase their market share. The only way to make them respect and obey the law is to introduce a system of fines for illegal trading that will make sure that crime does not pay. We should also deal firmly now with companies that obtained planning permission on the strict condition that they would not trade on Sundays and have since broken their undertakings.
In December 1992, the European Court of Justice made it clear that the British Parliament was free to legislate as it saw fit on the issue of Sunday trading. This decision was endorsed by the House of Lords in March this year when B and Q's claim that the Shops Acts 1950 was in breach of European law was firmly rejected. That decision makes it crystal clear that it is for this Parliament, not the big multiples or the European Court, to determine the law on Sunday trading, and for Ministers accountable to this Parliament to enforce what we determine.
Again, I most strongly emphasise that law and order is a fundamentally important issue in this debate. Not only is the Government's credibility at stake but also the reputation and respect for the authority of this House.

Mr. Michael Lord: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I echo his point about law and order. On Sunday trading, it seems as though there has been one rule for the big multiples and another for other people. We in the Conservative party are now making law and order a big issue, as we should, and this issue highlights the point. It would be a travesty if the major retailers were allowed to bully the House into changing legislation. That would set a bad precedent.
The Conservative party has coined the slogan "back to basics", with which I very much agree. What could be more basic than the traditional British Sunday? Keeping our Sunday as a different day of the week is essential for all sorts of reasons. We may not have time to go into all those reasons tonight, but we all know what we mean when we talk about the importance of keeping Sunday as a different day of the week. For some people it is a clay for religion and going to church, and for others it is a clay for family life or simply a day that breaks the rhythm of the week and gives people time to think and to rest from their ordinary labours.
Hon. Members may demand further definitions of Sunday and may nitpick about what we mean by a "traditional Sunday" but, if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that we all know what we are talking about. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that Sunday was not a new day of the week and that for the past 2,000 years, we had had such a break in our working week to rest and refresh ourselves. It is crucial that Britain keeps Sunday special.
The point that I wish to make strongly on Second Reading is that we shall have to choose between two

separate options. The water has been muddled, accidentally or deliberately, by the third option of six hours' trading, described as "partial deregulation". My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) destroyed the idea that that could be a sensible, intelligent compromise. That option is no such thing; it is a fig leaf for total deregulation.
The House has before it two options: first, a framework to preserve our Sundays and, secondly, deregulation in one form or another. How can six hours' trading, from 10 am to 4 pm, which many big supermarkets enjoy now on Sundays, be described as a compromise? Those are the hours that they want to open and the hours that they will get if we are daft enough to fool ourselves into believing that that is a sensible compromise. So let us have no wishy-washy arguments about the matter. Either we want regulation to look after Sundays or we want deregulation in some form.
I have no doubt that if we decide to keep our Sundays special and to frame that in legislation it will be difficult to do so. A massive amount of effort has now gone into that attempt. I was lucky enough to be a member of the Standing Committee on the Shops (Amendment) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). We had a difficult time trying to thrash out a compromise that would work, but it can be done, and it has been done. No one who believes in keeping Sunday special can be entirely happy with our compromise. However, if one believes that it is worth marking Sunday out as different from a working day and if one wants regulations to do that, some compromises must be made. It is difficult to do, but not impossible.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said that enforcement was impossible. Those who argue that enforcement is impossible and say that that is why they want total deregulation either fool themselves or have other reasons for putting forward that argument. They really want total deregulation and are using the argument that the other regulations cannot be enforced to support their position. I believe that a framework will be difficult but not impossible. If it is worth having, it is worth working for.
Although, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, whatever we decide is unlikely to be perfect, no legislation is perfect. A good example of how it is possible to distort legislation if one wants to do so is the argument that we often hear about girlie magazines and the Bible. Those who want to joke about the possibility of making enforceable regulations say that it is ridiculous that one can buy a girlie magazine but not a Bible on a Sunday. That is true. However, the people who framed the legislation said that one could buy newspapers but not books, for many other reasons, on a Sunday, and that is not stupid. The fact remains that a girlie magazine is a newspaper and a Bible is a book. That is how the argument can be stretched to its most ridiculous extent. That is the kind of argument that those opposed to keeping Sunday special are using to put forward their case and it is quite ridiculous.
I must make the point—it has been made more than once this evening—about the dominance of the large retailers. There is no doubt that if we have total deregulation on Sundays, the large supermarkets will grow at the expense of the smaller corner shops. Nobody denies that. Is not that a strange thing to be doing when times are difficult and when our smaller shops are struggling, while


our large grocery retailers are one of the few sections of industry turning in massive and record profits? There is something rather strange about that balance. It is stranger still that when profits are so huge, the large retailers should want even more trading at the expense of the smaller shops, which will undoubtedly suffer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) has said that we are no longer in the 1950s and that we are now in the 1990s. That is patently obvious and true. But some people would suggest that in terms of standards and the way in which we run our national life, the 1950s were not so bad in many areas, and that perhaps we should look backwards to some of those standards to see whether we have gone wrong on our way from the 1950s to the 1990s. I do not suggest that we should look backwards or that we should in any way be hidebound about such things, but I suggest that we may be wrong in thinking that we are always right in terms of deregulation and letting retail business in particular do exactly what it wants to do.
The supporters of Keep Sunday Special are often described as killjoys. That is nonsense, because more shops will be able to open under the proposed regulations than in the past. That is not entirely a false impression. If the regulatory system proposed by KSS comes about, we shall have open things that used to be open before all the lawbreaking started, plus sensible additions such as garden centres and DIY stores. The four Sundays before Christmas have already been mentioned. We need sensible regulations to keep Sunday a different day of the week.
We should think carefully before we finally pass total deregulation measures through the House of Commons. If we do that, it will be an irreversible decision. Having done that—having cast off all the regulations to allow Sunday to become just another day of the week—we shall never be able to put the clock back. I believe that we shall look back with sadness, and possibly with shame, in the years to come. I wonder what future generations will think about what we in the House of Commons have done. Most countries have some form of regulation. What a sad statement by our nation it would be if we consigned all our regulations for Sunday to the dustbin and the history books.
I started by talking about the slogan "back to basics". I believe very much that that is what we should be doing as a country. What better place to start than by preserving the basic traditions of the British Sunday?

Ms Janet Anderson: I believe that we are here this evening to discuss the general case for reform. That is what I would like to concentrate on.
As we all know, the present Shops Act goes back to 1950. It was largely a consolidating measure, based on original legislation that goes back to 1936. It fails to recognise the huge social changes in the way that we shop and work.
When the 1950 Act was passed, I was still a small baby. My mother did not work, and had the time to do the shopping every day. Forty-three years on, as a working

mother of three teenage children, it would be quite impossible for me to meet my family's shopping needs on a daily basis.
That change in working and shopping patterns has not just happened overnight. It has been a gradual change as more women have sought paid work outside the home—some voluntarily and some forced to by necessity.
But for whatever reasons those changes have occurred, the fact is that they have occurred. The Shops Act 1950 is now out of date, unworkable and virtually impossible for local authorities to enforce. In 1950, there were no DIY shops, video shops or rental centres, and, I suspect, few if any supermarkets—certainly none on the scale that we have today.
In 1950, shops sold a relatively limited range of goods. It may have been possible then to believe that Sunday shopping could be regulated by a list of goods. But by doing so, the legislation has produced a list of test cases such as whether a kipper is a meal or refreshment, or whether marzipan and toffee apples are confectionery. If legislation based on the type of goods sold threw up anomalies in the 1950s, clearly it was bound to produce more and more as patterns of work and shopping, and indeed of retailing, have changed.
The list pretty well now stretches into infinity. One can sell fresh vegetables but not frozen; bottled water but not fruit juice; gin but not baby milk; cigarettes but not fresh meat. One can even sell mule fodder on a Sunday—it is specifically mentioned in the 1950 Act. I do not suppose that there is much demand for that these days.
It is a scandal that such a nonsensical piece of legislation should have been allowed to remain on the statute book for so long. It is important to remember that it is not Parliament that has to enforce it, but long-suffering local authorities up and down the country, with trading standards officers forced, probably, to work on a Sunday to ensure that no shopkeeper tries to boost his takings by attempting to sell the odd bag of frozen peas.
It is no wonder that the Association of District Councils, of which I have the honour of being vice-president, has said that securing a change to the Shops Act was one of its most important objectives. It went on to say that the overriding concern of district councils was being saddled with the onerous responsibility for a piece of legislation that has proved very difficult and costly to enforce.
Seldom has a statute been so frequently and regularly challenged. It does not enjoy the confidence of business, local authorities or the public, and is now almost untenable. Reform should be brought forward as soon as possible.
Although I know that we shall be dealing with various options in the Bill at a later stage, it is important to point out that the ADC would not wish the anomalies of the 1950 Act, which have been exploited with such vigour and ingenuity, to be replaced with a new set. The law must make entirely clear, without ambiguity, those shops that are permitted to open and those that are not.
For local authorities, the cost of enforcement will largely depend on the complexity of the model. The cost of enforcing the regulatory models will increase depending on the number of restrictions. Those hon. Members—from the Opposition or from Government—who care about local government will, I am sure, bear that in mind should they be tempted by the KSS-RSAR option, for behind the smiling and welcoming faces of Mr. Michael Schluter and


Marks and Spencer lies the reality of a situation that could prove to be as confusing and anomalous as the one that we seek to reform today.
I return to the case for reform. There are two rather special groups around whom the whole debate should revolve—the consumer and the shopworker. The most convincing case for change is that it is what people want. Polls over the past 10 years have shown consistent majority support by 2:1 for Sunday trading. A 1991 Gallup poll found that 44 per cent. of people wanted food supermarkets open; 43 per cent. DIY shops; 43 per cent. convenience stores; 37 per cent. garden centres; and between 20 and 30 per cent. for video, clothes, and book and record stores. How many of those even existed in 1950?

Mr. Sheerman: Did my hon. Friend see the very watchable "To Play The King", which is a serial on Sunday evening? There was an interesting part, which perhaps my hon. Friend should have watched carefully, where the character Sarah promised the Prime Minister that she could arrange any result he liked from any opinion poll that he liked to give her.

Ms Anderson: I cannot comment, because I did not happen to see the programme in question.

Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Lady aware that the television programme "To Play the King" is fiction? Is she aware that she is describing reality?

Ms Anderson: I could not possibly comment.
Many families find that the only day when they can go shopping together is Sunday. If the House will indulge me, I would like to read out a letter that I received only the other day from two constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Marsh, who live in Darwen, Lancashire:
Dear Ms Anderson,
We strongly support Sunday shopping because we are busy working parents with two small children, and Sunday is the only day we can buy our weekly shopping and our children's needs, like nappies etc. It is also a very enjoyable day out for us which would otherwise be boring.
As the shopworkers' union USDAW has said, while we must all deplore lawbreaking in any form, we must also recognise that illegal Sunday trading has been taking place largely unchecked and on an increasingly widespread basis.
Large numbers of consumers have become accustomed to being able to shop freely on a Sunday. It would be difficult for Parliament now to legislate significantly to obstruct or curtail that activity, much less reverse it. Moreover, large numbers of retail employees have become used to working on Sundays. Many of them will have taken on financial commitments on the strength of the income that their Sunday working generates. It is simply not feasible for Parliament to deny such opportunities to working people, many of whom have come to rely on their Sunday earnings.
Only sensible reform of the 1950 Act can guarantee the continuation of these opportunities for working people. I believe that a new consensus has emerged on Sunday shopping—a consensus that crosses political party boundaries and embraces consumers, trade unions and local authorities. It is a consensus to which Members of this House must, and I hope will, respond tonight.

Mr. James Couchman: I am delighted to have caught the Chair's eye during this historic debate, for I have worked for 10 years since first I entered this House for reform of the outdated and ludicrous Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing this Bill today.
Through two private Members' Bills, drafted for me by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, and recently as chairman of the all-party group for shopping hours reform, I have sought to bring sense to the present untenable situation. In so doing, I have tried to respond to the very first request—nay, demand—put to me by my local district council, Gillingham borough council, 10 years ago, when it exhorted me to sort out the Sunday trading mess.
That early instruction from Gillingham council mirrored the frustration felt by councillors and council officers throughout the country as they recognised their inability to perform their statutory task of enforcing the 1950 Act. They recognise that the Act has become irrelevant and is widely flouted by otherwise law-abiding citizens.
The shortcomings of the 1950 Act, itself a consolidation measure, have long been recognised. The anomalies are legendary; my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned some which have led to extraordinary court cases. I will not weary the House by repeating them, but it is worth noting that the option put up by the KSS and the RSAR merger would actually perpetuate some of those very anomalies.
For instance, a shop whose main trade was selling pornographic magazines could open, but a shop selling bibles and religious tracts could not, even if located in a church. A tobacconist could not open, but smokers' requisites could be sold from newsagents and convenience stores as long as they did not form too large a share of the business.
Large DIY shops could sell fire extinguishers for use in cars but not for use in the home. An art gallery could sell local scenes but not abstract art—unless the pictures were given local names. Programmes could be sold in concert halls, but not recordings of the works played. This seems a perpetuation of the sort of nonsense that has plagued us for 40 years.
I believe that the simple thrust for reform comes from the fact that the 1950 Act was designed to protect workers who did not want to work on Sundays, but in circumstances wholly different from today's. Only 26 per cent. of married women wanted to, or did, work in 1950. Now, 70 per cent. of them go to work, although most are still the main shoppers in the family. In 1950, few people had refrigerators, and almost none had a deep freeze. Shopping was therefore necessarily done several times a week.
Today, because most people have fridges and many families have freezers, shopping has become a once-aweek trip, frequently on a Saturday or Sunday because the principal shopper works during the week. Even the relaxation of the strict terms of the 1950 Act governing tourism related to the family seaside holiday of yesteryear, taken during the summer at a traditional resort. No account is taken of today's trend towards short breaks in non-traditional locations.
In 1950, shopworkers were almost all employed full time in small, single-commodity shops, many of which served a small catchment area of people who did not have


cars, whose income came into the household in the form of a weekly wage, and who therefore shopped frequently for modest purchases from several shops. The butcher, the baker, the grocer, the greengrocer, the sweetshop and the ironmonger were all likely to be small, owner-run shops with one or two shop assistants.
Today, many shopworkers are part-time employees working for only a fraction of the opening hours of large, multi-commodity supermarkets serving wide catchment areas in which live people who mostly arrive by car and who, being paid monthly, fill their trolleys with a variety of purchases at considerable cost.
In short, the 1950 Act is riddled with anomalies, irrelevant to today's employment, irksome to today's life style and impossible to enforce. I cannot believe that any hon. Member does not accept the urgent need to reform the Sunday trading provisions of the Act, if only to clarify the law and restore obedience to it. Each of us must be uncomfortable with a statute that has fallen into such disrepute.
An estimated 150,000 shops open on Sunday, almost all of them selling some goods prohibited by the 1950 Act. Those shops serve more than half the population—25 million people—regularly and at least once a month, and more than a quarter of the population every week. So shopping on Sunday is clearly popular. It follows that reforming the outdated law on Sunday shopping is likely to be popular too, and opinion polls confirm that large majorities favour reform—and not just reform, but liberal reform to allow more shops to open.
Although the House is today debating whether the Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act should be reformed without specifying the form that that reform should take, it is impossible not to consider what form it should take, or at least what the essential qualities of any reform should be. The perceptive analysis of the Bill offered by Queen's counsel—by David Vaughan, John Samuels, Gerald Barling, Nicholas Davidson—and by David Anderson for solicitors Hepherd Winstanley and Pugh seems to me to lay down an excellent set of parameters for successful reform.
First, is the reform morally acceptable: does it accord with the views of right-thinking persons? Is the reform socially desirable and acceptable? Will the reform prove to be durable? Is the reform territorially coherent? Will it remove or perpetuate the differences in trading law in different parts of the United Kingdom? Is the law likely to be regarded as economically fair to shopowners and shopworkers, full and part-time? Is the proposed reform logical and comprehensible to the citizen? Shopkeepers and shoppers do not want to have to consult a lawyer to discover what can and cannot be sold on a Sunday.
Is the proposed law easy to interpret? It is essential that any reform leads to a law that is easy for courts and local authorities to apply consistently. The past two years of confusion over the 1950 Act should warn us against passing a new law that could be bedevilled by as much controversy as the one being reformed.
Will the new law be treated with general respect? It is evident to all that the present law is widely disregarded and flouted. Whichever of the three options for reform that

Parliament chooses to support, it must satisfy these questions positively for that reform to stand the test of time.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that those questions have been adequately answered by this proposed legislation? For example, it omits Scotland. The scope of the Bill has been tightened to such an extent that there can be no amendments to it. It does not apply to Northern Ireland, yet I understand that one of the questions posed by the hon. Gentleman related to the United Kingdom. More specifically, when he refers to "right-thinking people", is it right to go against the Maker's instructions? Would it be possible to carry any insurance cover were we to break the instructions of the Maker?

Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I can refer to him as such, because he is a friend—for that intervention. I am not going to swap biblical quotations with him. The Bill contains sensible and reasonable proposals. If either the total or partial deregulation option were to find favour with the House, I would like to see it applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, although in Scotland it would be unnecessary. I would also like to see it applied to Northern Ireland, although I know that the hon. Gentleman would resist that.
The Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act have had a troubled history, and it would be a tragedy if the House chose an option which failed to command popular support. In that event, it would be a matter of weeks or months before pressure began to build up for a fresh reform that did appeal to the public.
Whatever reform Parliament chooses needs to be easy to apply. Local authorities and courts should not have too great a burden put upon them by the new law—there are more important tasks for them to undertake. In the event of infringement, penalties should not be disproportionate. At least one of the options proposed contemplates penalties which could bankrupt all but the largest retailers. That is quite unrealistic, and immediately throws that option into question.
That option fails to answer many of the other questions that I asked a few moments ago, and depends for its foundation on a series of 56 exemptions to a total ban, leaves me believing that Parliament has a duty to reform the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950—not by placing a new set of vexatious restrictions on the freedom of a willing seller and a willing buyer to do business on a Sunday, but by seeking to legitimise the present position. Either the total deregulation or the partial deregulation envisaged by the Shopping Hours Reform Council would fulfil that aspiration.
The public have, over the past two years, become used to being able to shop on Sundays. I believe that we cannot put the genie back in the bottle, and I shall be consistent and support the partial deregulation of the Shopping Hours Reform Council—an option which I believe will preserve the specialness of Sunday without imposing restrictions which are massively unpopular and which would catalyse contention and possible court action.
I will be in good company. I am encouraged by a letter from the deputy general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, Mr. Bill Connor, dated 23 November 1993, in which he says:
First, on the question of trading hours and the options for reform which the Government is presenting to Parliament, we are


urging all Members of Parliament to vote in favour of option 2, which would basically permit all small shops to open on a Sunday and all larger ones to open for up to six hours.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wonder whether USDAW has taken into account the fact that many shops will clearly be unlikely to observe the restrictions placed on them by the law. I have a letter from W. H. Smith:
It is now certain that the Centre will be open for the last three Sundays before Christmas from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm.
In view of this I feel it is important to give you warning that you will be required to work all three Sundays…If, in the final resort, you are asked to work, you must.
That is when the law says that they cannot work. What are they going to do when the law says that they can but that there has to be some protection? What happens then.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend is wrong; there is currently no protection. This Bill envisages bringing in the sort of protection that will make it illegal for that firm to put that onerous burden on its workers who do not want to work on Sunday. She has totally missed the point.
I know that other hon. Members would like to speak. I will enthusiastically support the Second Reading of the Bill tonight. I look forward to supporting the partial deregulation option when the House debates clause 1 in Committee in the near future.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: It has been a great pleasure to participate in this debate. It is not often that one gets the chance to intervene on political friends and foe alike and to enjoy the freedom of the Back Benches. The way in which the debate has developed has been most instructive.
I have to declare an interest in this matter. I am sponsored by the Co-operative party—that is something that I am very proud of, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchetster, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—there is no financial bond involved in my voting for or against this measure. There is no whip on this matter in the Co-operative party; I am my own person on this issue.
I have long been in favour of Sunday trading reform. Like all the other speakers in the debate, I think that the Sunday trading laws are outdated and nonsense and that they need to be updated and changed.
I will take a slightly different tack from many of the points which have been made and which do not need repeating. This debate on Sunday trading is important, not only because of the specific issue before the House but because it begs some interesting questions about the way in which we organise our democracy and run our Parliament.
I have always believed in a measure of reform, and my constituents have consistently said to me that they want to be able to go to DIY centres, garden centres and small shops. That is my position on this matter and I shall support that option when we vote.
I have not had very many, what I call, free and independent spirits writing to me. We have all received letters, dictated by a manager, which say, "I must write to say that I am in favour of Sunday trading, otherwise the manager will be very displeased with me." There have been lots of those letters. None of us has been fooled by the endless requests made by the nice man or woman at the checkout who asks, "Will you sign our petition?" Following the great British tradition of good manners, people sign the petitions and do not think much about

them. I do not think that they are worth the paper they are printed on. The petitions are well organised, but they all come from one direction.
I have had five genuine letters about Sunday trading. Let us get it into proportion. Some hon. Members would suggest that the whole world is demonstrating to be able to shop on Sundays. That is total nonsense and a myth. But why do we get the feeling that there is a great deal of activity and interest out there? I think it is because certain people are organising a campaign.

Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that much of the interest might exist because 25 million people shop on Sundays? Are they not the ones who are showing an interest?

Mr. Sheerman: If I develop my argument, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by the way in which I answer his point.
Many Opposition speakers have tried to define the essence of Sunday, although it is impossible to quantify. It is valuable to think in terms of the regenerative nature of a Sunday. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the shadow Home Secretary, should bear firmly in mind the fact that it is a very important day, the one day in the week for ordinary people to relax, to regenerate their spirit. That is meant in some slightly mystical way, not a religious way. It is a day for people to take a break from the traumas and pressures of other days. In that respect, both my hon. Friend and I have been involved in home affairs, and I think that the restful and recuperative nature of Sunday keeps the crime rate down.
I do not think that it is a simple case of retailers breaking the law; that is a disgraceful example. It should not be suggested that household names such as Sainsbury have been breaking the law ruthlessly for the sake of their profits. A quieter voice, however, suggests that if people are not allowed some rest—some opportunity to stay together as a family and to relax on one day a week—there will be a knock-on effect on criminality, and on the general way in which people face life.

Ms Janet Anderson: Do not some families regard shopping as a relaxation? If I can go shopping on a Sunday, my family go to help me. It is a much more pleasureable activity than shopping alone on a weekday.

Mr. Sheerman: I appreciate that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheerman: May I answer one question before I begin on another?
I wonder what these people are doing. They must be working extremely hard if they cannot shop on a Saturday. When I return to my flat in the Barbican, I can go across to the local Safeway, which is open until 8 pm. An enormous amount of shopping time is now available. However, I do not want to pursue that point now; I want to return to the nature of consumerism.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) ever tried to shop with two small boys below counter height and a shopping bag in each hand? It is impossible to hold the children, who are off around the next corner before you can say knife. That is not my idea of relaxation.

Mr. Sheerman: I have been shopping with my four children, and have found it enjoyable. In that regard, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen. Not being a very modern man, I simply let them run riot; I think that it is the shop proprietor's responsibility to call them to order.
Some people object to the fact that most of our holidays have traditionally been driven by religion. Holidays followed the Church timetable, which itself followed the pattern of the seasons. A spiritual, agrarian tradition decided when we worked and when we rested. I accept that holidays—rightly—now follow a different pattern and have a different tone, reflecting the modern urban realities of the late 20th century, in which few people are tied to the land by occupation and far fewer would describe themselves as active members of any religion or creed.
I suggest, however, that a new religion now holds sway in Britain. Its name is consumerism. It is preached by its high priests, the successful retail bosses—the chairmen and chief executives of the big retail chains, the David Sainsburys of the high street. Those new high priests have a great deal of power.
In Britain, retailing power lies in the hands of a select few—a point that I have tried to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. That is more true of us than of any of our European neighbours or American counterparts. In food retailing alone, five companies control a massive share of the total market. The top three—Sainsbury, Tesco and Safeway—together account for more than 50 per cent. of the retail food market; the top four account for 61 per cent. Is that what we want, in terms of retailing diversity? I do not believe so. I believe that Sunday trading will increase the power of those few retailers and will be very damaging to society.
In any other society and under any other Government, that degree of power and that share of the market—the inflated profit margins and the lack of competition—would have led to accusations of monopoly, followed by investigation and a curb on at least the worst excesses of such market domination. In Britain, however, retail power has been allowed to grow to terrifying proportions. Increasingly, the retail monopolists are eager to win friends in government and other political parties and to influence political decision making. To achieve their aims, they have in turn aided and financed a huge expansion in the world of the political lobbyist: the lobbying of parliamentarians, civil servants, regulators in Europe and those in the United Kingdom has reached an unprecedented scale.
Any hon. Member present now would honestly admit that we have not seen such a movement in the political lobby during the time in which we have been in Parliament. A small group of monopoly retailers, ever hungry for higher profit and in the single-minded pursuit of increased market share, decided some time ago to launch an overall strategy. Let us picture the scene. They could afford the best—all the top lawyers, the posters, the public relations and the lobbyists. All were invited to talk about thow the market share of particular companies could be expanded. It was decided, as one of the strategies, that they must be able to use their fixed capital as often as possible, and that, over the next two or three years, they must target the ability to trade on Sundays.
Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that tens of thousands of pounds are involved. When the research into the campaign has been completed, it will be proved that millions are involved. Which Member of Parliament has

not been inundated with glossy leaflets and telephone calls, and asked to participate in lavish entertainment? Champagne, oysters and caviare were available; it was only necessary to go along to Sainsbury, Tesco and Safeway and join in their campaigns.
Some of our opponents may laugh, but it is true, and there is a serious message behind it. Millions of pounds have been spent on persuading Members of Parliamentt to change their minds—on persuading them that the British people want not a peaceful Sunday, but a retailing Sunday.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for one hon. Member to accuse others of being corrupt—of being open to bribes of caviare offered in an attempt to make us think that we should vote in a particular way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is taking this a little too seriously.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) knows, as the House knows, that that kind of pressure—that kind of entertainment—does not work with independent-minded Members of Parliament. That is why those who organise it will not succeed in changing the law and giving it a non-regulatory framework.
The first piece of advice that the experts offered their paymasters was that, to be successful, the whole campaign should be fought in the name of the consumer and should purport to come from a genuine desire of the part of the British public not only to shop till they drop, but to do it on Sundays as well. During the campaign, intolerable pressure has been exerted on Members of Parliament by the band of monopoly retailers, through their lobbyists.
I believe, however, that some good may come of this. I believe that, after the debate is over and when we win our preferred option, an analysis will be made of what has gone on over the past two years. I think that there will be a general call for an examination of the political lobbying techniques that have been used over the period. I also believe that there will be a heightened awareness of what is going on in our democracy when large retailers—or interests with large amounts to spend—can mount a campaign of the size and power of the one that we have seen over the past weeks and months. Some good will come out of this campaign, but I tell the House most seriously that I believe that that is the only good that will come from it.
The issues in the debate are clear. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will support the Second Reading of the Bill. However, I beg the House to adopt a careful approach to the subsequent vote on the two choices. I agree with my hon. Friends on both sides of the House that there are only two choices. A characteristic of the campaign has been that the experts—the spin doctors —have said, "You must make yourselves look as though you are in the centre—as though yours is the compromise position." It was because of that that we saw the emergence of the total deregulation lobby, which I regard as absolutely phoney. Then we had the RSAR and Keep Sunday Special and—nicely positioned, as it thought—the Shopping Hours Reform Council.
By good footwork, we have marred the SHRC's ability to present its position as the compromise position. The genuine compromise on Sunday trading is the compromise that we offer, which would allow people to choose to shop


in DIY stores, garden centres and small shops. If that alternative is not chosen, we will see the end of Sunday as we know it—and, as has been said, we are talking not just about Sunday being special but about Sunday being precious. Once we have got rid of Sunday as we know it, it will never come back. We shall not have an oppportunity to debate a motion to the effect that we should bring back Sunday.
My hon. Friends and I and, on this issue, my good friends on the other side of the House are making common cause tonight because we want not only to highlight what is going on in British politics today but to take this opportunity to show the British public—our constituents, who have a view on the matter—that we are not beguiled by the big lobbyists or persuaded, as the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire suggested, by lavish entertainment. We owe our constituents our judgment, and our judgment must be that we want to keep Sunday special and we want to keep it precious. We owe that duty to our constituents, and when the options are voted on, next week or the week after, we will win the day.

Mr. James paice: I must start by reminding the House that I have an interest, which is declared in the Register of Member's Interests, as a consultant to the Dixon group of companies.
I suspect that an analysis of today's Hansard will show that by far the longest speeches in the debate have been those made by the proponents of the Keep Sunday Special proposals. What one can read into that I do not know—unless it is that it takes longer to make a difficult case.
Before I deal with specific points, I want to refer to a peripheral matter which might, none the less, form the basis of an important sequel to this debate. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is to wind up the debate because the matter to which I refer falls within his remit. I refer to the absurdities and anomalies in relation to Sunday betting under the betting, gaming and lotteries legislation.
My hon. Friend knows of my great interest in the racing industry. He will be aware that, earlier this year, the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), gave the all-party committee on Racing and Bloodstock an undertaking that, once the Sunday trading issue had been resolved, he would seek to bring into line and liberalise the betting, gaming and lotteries legislation as it applies to Sundays. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that that remains his position and that, once this matter has been resolved—as I am sure that we all wish it to be—he will fulfil that undertaking.
The issue of Sunday trading gives rise to strong emotions, and we have heard some of them expressed this evening. There are strong feelings on both sides. Unlike the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I have been inundated with what I believe to be genuine letters on both sides of the argument in which strong points have been made.
In seeking to reform Sunday trading we must start with two fundamental criteria: first, we must be as fair as possible; and, secondly, any legislation must be enforceable. The latter point has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the argument, but I shall refer to it again in a moment.
I started from the position that I wanted to keep Sunday special. That is a policy that I still maintain. I will not undertake political engagements on a Sunday because I value Sunday as the one day in the week that I spend with my family. I think that that is important, but I question whether I have the right or responsibility to impose my position on others. The position that I adopted was a matter of personal choice. I do not pretend to be a regular churchgoer—I am not—but Sunday is the one day of the week that I keep for myself.
Initially therefore, I looked at the KSS proposals in a favourable light—not least because KSS is based in Cambridge, in the constituency immediately adjoining my own. The more I looked at those proposals, the more I came to believe that they did not constitute the right way forward.
There are only two ways of regulating Sunday trading —if, that is, it is to be regulated at all. One can define the type of shop that can open or the type of product that can be sold, or one can specify the number of hours for which a shop can open. I emphasise that type of shop and type of product are closely related. The existing legislation is based on the products that may be sold; the KSS proposals refer to types of shop, but they are defined by the type of product that can be sold in those shops.
Many hon. Members have accused the large shops of breaking the law—and that has been a theme of many of the letters that I have received—but, in reality, virtually every shop that is open on Sundays is breaking the law. Any shop may open if it does not sell anything. That is how the law is framed at present—the type of product that can be sold is the basis of the existing legislation. Virtually every shop that is open on Sundays sells goods which, strictly speaking, are prohibited. We must be clear that it is not just the big shops that are breaking the law, although they are certainly breaking the letter of the law.
Part of the reason why the existing law has fallen into disrepute is that the definition of products in the 1950 Act is completely out of date. First, many of the products now on offer in shops had not even been dreamt of in 1950 and, secondly, people's behaviour and shopping habits and lifestyles have changed dramatically since then.
The type of shop approach—the KSS approach—gives rise to risks identical to those that have already completely destroyed the basis of the existing legislation. The KSS approach would create a lawyers' paradise. Take for example, the DIY shops. At present, the provision refers specifically to goods on sale which are
wholly or mainly … Material and tools suitable for use in the construction, repair or decoration of the structure of dwellings.
I undertake a good deal of do-it-yourself work in my home and regularly visit the local DIY shop. Such shops sell tools, materials, hardware, tiles, lamps, lightshades, outdoor chairs, barbecue units, curtains and all manner of electrical items, because almost anything nowadays can be electrically operated.
How does one define those items? When an item is invented to help the DIY person, will it be classified as a DIY item? Who will decide? Such a decision will ultimately require case law. The Bill's provisions will be extremely difficult to enforce and ultra expensive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) spoke about the report containing the joint opinion of four QCs and David Anderson. They referred to the term "domestic cleaning materials" which also occurs in the Bill. They state:


Does it mean items reqired for the cleaning of the house and fittings and fixtures or does it extend to general cleaning in or about the house and thus include soaps, powders and liquids for the washing of dishes or clothes as opposed to those for the cleaning of floors and baths? Does it extend to brushes, dusters, mops and other items used in the process of domestic cleaning?
That is an example of how the law would quickly fall into the disrepute that attaches to the present law.
What happens if the DIY shop starts to stock more electrical items, either those that are currently available or those that may soon be invented? Beyond the lamps, lights and tools, it may stock camcorders and built-in ovens. Who can say that a built-in oven is not part of the structure of a building? Such items still fall within the defined primary activity.
Near my home but not in my constituency, in a small area in Newmarket adjoining a shared car park, there is a major DIY shop and a major store owned by Eastern Electricity. It is incredible that on a Sunday one can enter the DIY shop to buy electrical items while the Eastern Electricity store will be closed. That is not fair in anybody's judgment and it has to be addressed.
In terms of fairness, how do we define the principal activity? A small activity in a large store which does not hinder the principal activity argument may be the principal activity in a smaller store. I question the fairness of saying that one store can open to sell a particular product while another cannot. I used the example of purchasing curtains. Why should I be able to buy curtains in a big DIY store and not be able to buy them in a high street shop that specialises in curtains and other soft furnishings and furniture?
I understand the desire to protect Sunday trading and small shops. I represent a large rural constituency and to me village shops matter a great deal. My life has been spent in villages and in trying to defend their interests. However, I do not accept the argument that more liberal Sunday trading would destroy village shops. Such shops face immense pressures: the very existence of supermarkets has damaged them considerably. Our shopping behaviour has affected them dramatically and, dare I say it, rating valuation and the penal business rates levied on some village shops and post offices have had an effect.
In its report, the Rural Development Commission concluded that the best way to help is to improve competitiveness and commercial viability. The rural pressure group ACRE concluded that Sunday opening was not a key factor in the changes already affecting the whole question of the future of small shops.
Another aspect of Sunday trading relates to the workers who are involved. I welcome the White Paper changes on worker protection, which are entirely sensible. Many people who advocate the restrictive measures option in the Bill are applying double standards. We all accept that people in the emergency services work on Sundays, we expect them to do so, but how many of those who write to me pressing for keeping Sunday special appreciate that many other people work on Sundays?
A recent survey estimated that some 40 per cent. of the work force work regularly on Sundays. That applies not only to those in the emergency services but to people in the media—television and the press—although perhaps we do not worry too much about them. What about our electricity supply industry? People expect the television and the lights to work on a Sunday. The gas supply for heating and

cooking and the water supply are all expected to operate. We forget that many factories work a seven-day rota shift and that for many people Sunday is part of the working pattern. One of the oldest industries in the world, the farming industry, has Sunday as a natural part of its working pattern.
All those are people who work regularly on Sundays. It is not something relatively unique to shopworkers; indeed, we could almost argue that it is the shopworkers who are unique in never having to work on Sundays, as the law stands.
I am a little concerned about complete deregulation, which would give the wrong signals about an end to Sunday as a particular day. That is why I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, intend to support the proposals which were described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) as a minor compromise but which I believe to be a significant compromise between the two extremes. That compromise will retain a degree of regulation that is both enforceable and reasonably fair to everybody.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I must tell the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) that I have not experienced the flood of public opinion to which he referred, with people knocking on my door or writing to me demanding the right to shop on Sundays. I have received 101 unsolicited letters on the issue, 78 of which were from people who supported either the Keep Sunday Special option or the RSAR option. Twenty came from people who supported the SHRC proposal, a large number of those being from employees writing on company notepaper. I received three letters from constituents urging me to support total deregulation.
I recognise that many people find it convenient to shop on Sundays, and do so. If that were not the case, none of the shops would open. However, I do not get the feeling that for those people it is a critical, life-or-death issue. It is not something about which they feel strongly enough to write to their Members of Parliament. I have not felt under any pressure from the public to support the deregulation of Sunday shopping.
However, I have felt under some pressure from managers of the companies in the SHRC group. I recently had a meeting, which it kindly organised, with the York managers of all the stores in the group. Perhaps the final factor that tilted me in favour of the RSAR proposal was that one of the managers of a large food superstore in my constituency, from within the SHRC group, said that if I did not support its proposal he would tell all his Sunday workers that I was putting them out of a job. I regret that threat. I realise that Sunday work is important to those workers, but the work of the draper's assistant, the shoemender's assistant and those in the small Spar store or corner shop are equally important.
Research shows quite clearly that if large stores open on a Sunday there will be a net loss of jobs in retailing. As a Member of Parliament, I cannot support one group of retail workers against another—I have to support the interests of all.

Mr. Couchman: If the hon. Gentleman supports the RSAR-KSS option, he is supporting one group of workers


against another. He is supporting the employees of small shopkeepers against the employees of large shopkeepers. He is being partial.

Mr. Bayley: Yes, I accept that; I am being partial. The House must make a choice and, faced with a choice between the interests of big business and those of small business, the interests of large retailers—as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, the biggest of four control 61 per cent. of the market—against the interests of a range of shops that provide a great deal of diversity—the small, local businesses—I shall support the latter.
The debate is about the interests of big business versus the interests of the small trader. It is about the interests of out-of-town shopping centres against those of the high street. It is about the interests of big employers against the interests of employees. A vote for deregulation would be a vote for giving some large chain stores the freedom to increase their market share at the expense of small shops and businesses. It would be a vote for the hypermarket at the expense of the high street.
I have to make a choice, and in an historic city such as York that attracts may tourists, I want to maintain its city centre shops. They are an important part of the city—important to local people and to visitors. At the latest count, 79 shops in the centre of York were empty, partly because of extremely high business rates, partly because of high rents—which increased at the end of the 1980s—and partly because of the recession, but also partly because of increased pressure from Sunday opening in out-of-town shopping centres.
It is claimed that freedom to shop on Sundays is a matter of freedom of choice. For some shoppers, it is a matter of choice. Unrestricted Sunday shopping would give those with cars the choice of shopping at the supermarket on Sunday as well as on the other six days of the week, but their freedom would mean restricted choice for other shoppers—especially the elderly, who do not have cars and who may in some cases lose the opportunity to shop at a local store. They will lose the independence that is terribly important to them. They will have to become dependent on somebody else—a home help if they can get one, or a friend. Someone else will have to do their shopping for them.
It is claimed also that Sunday shopping would be a boon to working women—not to all, because 1·5 million working women are retail workers who would have to work on Sunday. It is hard to believe the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) that large numbers of working women cannot shop on the other six days a week, when the shops are open from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening. It will be true for some, but I do not believe that large numbers of working women work a 12-hour day, six days a week, and cannot get to the shops except on Sunday. Some of them may find it convenient to shop on Sunday, but that convenience may be at the expense of the ability of others else to shop at all.
It is hard to believe also that there is an overwhelming demand for Sunday shopping. I read in The Daily Telegraph on 20 November that Sainsbury does not intend to open many of the high street stores that are closed on Sundays now, because it does not see the demand.
I received a number of letters from small businesses in my constituency urging me to support their interests

against those of the large stores. Stuart Watson, who manages a number of Spar stores, states that, since the large out-of-town shopping centres around York started trading on Sunday, his trade has dropped 30 per cent. He believes that if Sunday shopping is deregulated, thousands of small shops and tens of thousands of jobs will be lost.
Mr. Beresford, a shoe repairer, wrote:
Everyone seems just to think about the big supermarkets with no thought for the small specialist retailer.
Mr. Woodhead, a baker, describes deregulation as
a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Maurice Vassie, an architectural ironmonger, wrote:
It is ironic, though not surprising, that a Government which pontificates about family values should be so busily promoting a measure that will create tens of thousands of latch-key kids.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to an architectural ironmonger. I do not know the size of that store, but does he consider it fair that I could go into Texas or B & Q and buy architectural ironmongery, but I could not go into a specialist shop if it happened to be one of more than 3,000 sq ft?

Mr. Bayley: If it is a DIY store, all DIY stores would be able to open.
Michael Frampton, a jeweller in my constituency, sent me an article from the Financial Times, which said that Shopping Hours Reform Council directors
have no objection to a statutory enforcement
of the SHRC proposals, but he points out that they have not abided by the current statute law.
There are 2 million shopworkers whose future is being considered when we debate this measure, but it is not just that of the shopworkers; it is that of the other workers who will have to service shopping centres—street cleaners, the police and so on. Whichever option the House chooses, we must ensure that there is statutory protection, and doublle time payment—not just statutory protection of an enhanced rate, because that could simply be an enhanced rate of one penny a day.
In my meetings with local store managers, both from the SHRC and the RSAR, I have asked them specifically whether their stores would object to the Bill containing a stipulation that payment for Sunday working for those shopworkers who work on Sundays would be at double time. Not one of those store managers said that they would object. It is essential, to my mind, that double time should go into the Bill.
Finally, there are two other issues which I would like to be discussed in Committee. The first is the issue of car boot sales and Sunday markets. They are driving down quality and they are now competing with the food retailers, but trading standards officers find it impossible to enforce standards because one trader who is there one week selling dodgy meat, for example, is not there subsequently. Car boot sales and Sunday markets encourage crime; they are places where stolen goods change hands. They are also taking market share from large and small retailers.
Secondly, in Committee I would want the status of electrical goods shops to be reconsidered in relation to the RSAR proposal.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I know that two other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall be fairly brief, unlike some of my predecessors.
It is anathema, as we enter the year 2000—the third millennium—that we are discussing the question of


controlling whether shops should or should not open on a Sunday. It seems absolutely astonishing to me. Nevertheless, we are witnessing a move in the House towards reality. It was interesting that, as we heard from a previous speaker, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has already come out in favour of trading on Sunday. I notice that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who was so active and vituperative in relation to the private Member's Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), is not in her place and has been absent throughout the debate, despite being president—unless she has been deposed—of USDAW.
I have also noticed, during the debate, that the most incredible horror stories have been suggested by hon. Members who would like to keep Sunday special. They feel that if the deregulation option is chosen, or the option proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, there would be a great difference to life in the United Kingdom, and in England and Wales in particular. Why do they take that view? In Scotland and indeed Ireland, where there has been total deregulation, a larger proportion of people regularly worship in church on a Sunday than in England and Wales where there is regulation. The situation in Scotland is interesting because it has stabilised. Only about 25 per cent. of the shops choose to open.
As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said, Sainsbury does not intend to open every shop, because there is no demand for it. However, there is certainly a demand for shopping on Sunday, as evidenced by 25 million people regularly shopping on Sundays. I have visited retail outlets such as Tesco and Safeway, and I have met shopworkers who do not want to work on a Sunday, but that is not a problem—there is no question of compulsion as the majority of shopworkers want to work on a Sunday and are queueing up to do so. Those who do not wish to work on a Sunday need not do so as there is no shortage of people willing to work on a Sunday for all sorts of reasons, and premium payments are but one of them.
The Retailers for Shops Act Reform have an amazing morality. They would like to keep Sundays special for all sorts of economic reasons. We have heard about those reasons today, and most of them are fallacious. One of the reasons that hon. Members have spoken about is that Sunday is the seventh day, and they made religious allusions. It is the utmost irony, then, that Sunday is a religious day, but that the four Sundays leading up to the birth of Christ are not, and they would have shops open then. Some hon. Members have accused the Shop Hours Reform Council's option of being some sort of strange compromise, but in fact RSAR's is the compromise.
The John Lewis Partnership is an interesting case. The company has been stringent in keeping all of its stores closed on a Sunday, at a cost of more than £1 million per week. One of the arguments that it gives for keeping shops closed on a Sunday, apart from not wanting to break the law, is that it would increase the cost of sales of goods. However, that it not the case. Research by London Economics shows that, far from leading to increased cost, deregulation would produce a saving for households. Under more regulatory schemes, the converse would happen.
I do not want to filibuster, as some of my colleagues have done. I recommend that hon. Members read the briefing provided by the Library on the Sunday Trading Bill as it contains all the details.
It seems that those hon. Members who say that people should not shop on Sundays are the same ones who do not go out and shop for themselves. They have wives to do it. Heaven forbid—they may even have servants to do it for them. Being a single man—I am still single despite the inaccurate caption in the Evening Standard today—I know that women and single men need to shop on a Sunday. Therefore, I commend to the House that we support Second Reading and support either deregulation or the Shopping Hours Reform Council's option.

Mr. Andrew Miller: My speech will be extremely brief, and I shall get straight to the salient point. I intervened on the Home Secretary to ask whether the Government would force Conservative members to vote a particular way on some parts of the Bill. Recently, I had a debate with a regional manager of Sainsbury's on that very point. He was shocked by my suggestion that the Government would not allow a genuine free vote on all aspects of the Bill. Earlier, however, the Home Secretary made it clear that I was right and the regional manager was wrong. Perhaps I should have told that Sainsbury's manager, "As in all trading arrangements, caveat emptor," if one is permitted to drift into Latin in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made an extremely important point relating to employment protection. Undoubtedly, the Government have operated double standards in the context of this debate. Earlier this year, on 16 June, on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, in the interests of companies of a specific size the Government set a totally arbitrary figure of 20 employees below which different regulations would apply. They cannot have it both ways. Either there is a mechanism for differentiating between small shops and the largest chains, or there is not. If the Government were consistent, they would at least look at column 912 of Hansard for 16 June and try to find a formula which would meet all the interests throughout the country on that point.
My intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who was talking about small local garden centres, illustrated precisely that point. Those small centres are often family businesses which could be protected by a formula devised in the same way as the Government suggested in earlier legislation. That is what the country is looking for, and in many ways it is what the House wants to see.
If the Government were prepared to allow a free vote, perhaps taking into account a formula derived from that in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, a solution might be found which could satisfy a wide proportion of the population and virtually all hon. Members, except for the die-hards who do not believe in employment protection at all.

Mr. Douglas French: In the few moments which are available to me, I wish to stress what I consider to be the most important point. In framing the legislation, we must find a simple solution which can be easily understood.
I am sorry to find myself disagreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) who described the regulation proposal as "workable." That view was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) and by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Morris). The name of Anthony Scrivener QC has been raised in support of that view. I am not interested in the views of learned silks who look at the problem from their eyrie in the Temple. I am interested in the extent to which the laws are understood by the shopkeepers in the back streets of Gloucester. While they are good at running small shops, they are not necessarily legal eagles, so my prime concern is that the solution should be straightforward.
The moment I see the words "wholly or mainly" in a set of proposals, I am reminded of the extent to which we over-complicate so much legislation. In relation to the tax, benefit and VAT systems, for example, we so often make things far more complicated than is needed. That is a fault which we would be well-advised to correct, if we can.
Regarding the proposals in the regulatory formula on specialist shops, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) drew attention to some of the anomalies which that would cause. They would be even greater than those which exist in the legislation which we are seeking to get rid of.
The anomalies include the fact that one would be able to buy toys and books at a newsagent, but not from a toys or book shop. One could buy meat or bread from a small supermarket but not from a butcher or baker. That seems to be impractical, confusing, unfair and virtually unenforceable.
We see similar problems with the size requirements, which appear both in the regulation and the partial deregulation proposals. I urge the House not to underestimate the difficulty of deciding when an outlet is less than 280 sq m and when it is more. This is a charter for lawyers and surveyors to get their teeth into, at the expense always of the shopkeepers.
One can think of all kinds of practical difficulties. For example, what if the lobby of a shop has a couple of trays of goods, or the storeroom of a shop has a couple of shelves which are in reach of the customer? Will they come within the 280 sq m requirement or not? Even if one could agree about those things, the design of shops does change and can be subject to constant evolution.
Another hon. Member mentioned the contrast between a do-it-yourself store of 270 sq m, which would be allowed to sell a lampshade, and a branch of precisely the same store down the road which is slightly over 280 sq rn. The latter would have to cordon off not only its lampshades, but its smoke alarms and other things. That seems to be a recipe for maximum confusion.
I also think of the effect of the regulations on the business man himself. Whenever he starts to think about taking on a new line, he will have to have regard to whether it alters his "wholly or mainly" position, and if he considers an extension of his premises, he will have to have

an eye to the size limit. There will also be the enforcement problems for the local authorities, which will incur enormous expenses checking on the size of the establishment, on the wholly or mainly provisions and on the stock being carried. It is a recipe for disputes and disagreements, and for plenty of work for solicitors and surveyors. It will lead to an even more complex situation than the one we are trying to get rid of.
I am much more attracted to the partial regulation formula, but it raises the question of how small shops should be treated. I place great value on the diversity of small shops, and the importance of them in the retailing network. Nothing should be done to tilt the balance against the interests of small shops.
I am somewhat concerned that the partial deregulation proposals will do precisely that, because they go too far in the direction of large shops, which would be permitted to open for six hours. I do not agree with that approach. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby that Sunday has a special character that is worth preserving, and one does not preserve that special character by making it a sort of low-key Saturday.
My formula would be a compromise, avoiding the complexities of the type of shop and the type of goods, of the size of the shop or the hours of opening. We can do without all that in the interests of having effective, low-cost enforcement and easy-to-understand laws. We could achieve a result that acknowledged the fact that some people wish to shop on Sundays and some people wish to work on Sundays by a simple formula along the lines of allowing all shops to open, whatever they are selling, for half of Sunday. I have a personal preference for Sunday afternoons, but there are arguments for Sunday morning.
That is a simple proposal that would be understood by everyone. It would not be a charter for lawyers or surveyors. It would be understood in the Temple as it would be understood in the high streets of Gloucester. I recommend it to the House.

Ms Joan Ruddock: The debate has been remarkably restrained compared to some of the knockabout exchanges of the past. None the less, there has been plenty of claim and counter-claim, as befits a debate about a fundamental change in our way of life, a change that some would seek to halt, some to endorse and some to encourage.
All the proposals in the Bill represent an extension of Sunday trading beyond that of the Shops Act 1950. Some of us would like to put the clock back, not to the absurd anomalies of the Act but to that kinder, gentler society, to a time when rampant commercialism did not hold sway and Governments did not promote competition and personal acquisitiveness as a politically correct way of life.
Let us be clear about the nature of today's debate. Of course there is a need to update the Act, but that would have been done a decade ago by a responsible Government. Today's debate has been conditioned less by the changes in society over the past 40 years than by an unprecedented orgy of law-breaking for commercial ends.
There are those, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who have argued that law-breakers should not be rewarded. I have great sympathy with that view, but unfortunately rewards have already been granted. The Government's failure to act


since the defeat of their 1985 Bill has enabled a new climate and a new market to be created. Today's debate is taking place against public opinion formed by the new circumstances and new experience of widespread Sunday trading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, that public opinion is one of the factors that has to inform our choice of options.
I cannot accept, however, that ordinary people have created the demand for Sunday trading. For many smaller family shops, it has been the struggle to stay in business during repeated recessions that has led to increasingly long hours and Sunday opening. For the larger supermarket chains and DIY stores—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—Sunday opening has been about carving out, maintaining or increasing market share.
I accept that there has been a consumer response to Sunday trading from workers and shoppers. That response undoubtedly stems from changes in the pattern of our working and domestic lives, which were so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson).
Only a minority now work 9 to 5. A quarter of Britain's work force are part-timers, and 70 per cent. of married women work outside the home. Part-time work can be desirable and Sunday shopping can be convenient and pleasurable, but neither is entirely neutral in its impact on society. In general, part-time work attracts lower pay and more limited prospects. Sunday trading is acceptable to those who are shopping, but can be a nuisance to those who are not.
Most important, current levels of Sunday trading do not tell us how things would be under new Sunday trading laws. Complete deregulation would have an effect far beyond current trading levels, and clearly would endanger the special nature of Sunday.
Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and the Home Secretary, have cited complete deregulation in Scotland as having had no significant effect on society north of the border. That has more to do with the good sense of the Scots and the ambient culture in Scotland than with the state of legislation.
Commercial pressures, population density and, consequently, potential profits are radically different in England than in Scotland. The proportion of outlets trading illegally on Sunday in England is already considerably higher than in Scotland. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that, because of the lack of employee protection in that completely deregulated society, wages and conditions for Scottish Sunday workers have worsened in recent years as Sunday trading has increased.
All extensions of Sunday trading in England, Scotland or Wales will impact on our local environment. Even where outlets are on industrial estates, experience in urban areas such as mine in south-east London is of long traffic queues along high streets and in residential areas.
For those reasons, and for many others, we believe that complete deregulation must be unacceptable to the House. We are, however, prepared to give a Second Reading to the Bill, acknowledging that the issue must now be settled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, we desire an outcome that is logical, fair and enforceable.
We do so in the belief that Sunday is a special day. For most people, it is still the day when they are most likely to be able to spend leisure time with family and friends. In most social circles, the majority of people are still not required to work on a Sunday. In that respect, Sunday remains different from Monday to Saturday, and most people have developed a life style that takes account of that.
We believe that, although all aspects of the Bill will give rise to more Sunday trading there is a duty on the House, in recognising the special nature of Sunday, to attempt to find a formula that will in some way preserve that and at the same time be responsive to changing circumstances, the changing way of life and changing public opinion.
If some people are to be denied the opportunity to take advantage of a free Sunday and to act as others will do in their social and family circles, and if they are to be required to work for the convenience or pleasure of others, they must do so voluntarily and be rewarded appropriately for that sacrifice. The Opposition are united on that matter.
The Government have been forced to concede the strength of our argument, not least because they have done their arithmetic and know how hon. Members' votes are likely to be cast. For a Government who have systematically undermined rights at work, abolished wages councils and set their face against the social chapter, this must be a bitter pill.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady has stated her personal views, and I fully accept that they are not the views of the entire Opposition Front Bench. She says that she would like to control trading on Sundays and has now mentioned the social chapter. What would she say to the 150,000 shopworkers who would lose their jobs if, on top of bringing in the social chapter, we were to control trading on Sundays?

Ms Ruddock: Like all my colleagues, I have no doubt that introducing the social chapter would be to the advantage of our society, our workers and our businesses. If it is good enough for all the other members of the EC, their businesses, industries and workers, it is certainly good enough for British workers. The hon. Gentleman has been arguing in favour of deregulation or partial deregulation. He would be wise not to present himself as someone seeking to reduce the conditions and wages of British workers, as one could impute from what he has just said about the social chapter.
I am not expressing a personal view on the options in the Bill. I believe that Sunday should be a special day, and I try to act that out in my personal life. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield spelled out what we seek from the Bill, and I shall mention that in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) asked why, at this late hour, the Government had put schedule 4 into the Bill. It was simply because of our pressure, my hon. Friend's pressure and pressure by the campaign groups that the Government realised that that was the price they must pay to guarantee a Second Reading.
Even so, we shall go on to seek amendments to the schedule, not least in favour of premium pay. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, we believe that special financial reward would give proper recognition to the continuing special nature of Sunday.


That premium payment—we shall propose double payment—will force employers to recognise that people who work voluntarily on Sunday are sacrificing family life and should be appropriately rewarded. That would be the case whether the KSS-RSAR option or the SHRC option were adopted.
We urge the Minister again to allow the House—perhaps he will comment on this in winding up—to decide that issue as all the other issues of the Bill. If it is a matter of conscience whether shops should open, equally it is a matter of conscience how workers who must staff those shops should be treated. A free vote on that issue is essential to the House expressing its view.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Ruddock: I am about to finish. I will not give way at this stage, because it would take up the Minister's time.
I want to reiterate what the Labour party seeks from the Bill; that the choice that is made will be fair and enforceable, and, particularly and importantly, that it recognises the rights of shopworkers and the fact that there must be choice about Sunday working.
Much further debate is required. Choices have to be made. Amendments will be tabled, but, for the moment, we are content to give the Bill a Second Reading.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): This has been an unavoidably short debate, but with the impressive increase in pace after 9.15 pm, I am glad to see that all those who wanted to speak just managed to do so.
However, the central issues of the Bill—the way in which Sunday is special, and how far the criminal law should prescribe which shops may open and what they may sell on a Sunday—will, if the Bill is read a Second time, and if the business motion is accepted, be continued in the Chamber on the first day in Committee.
During the debate this evening, we have listened to different recipes for Sunday espoused on both sides of the House. But I did not hear—although I was looking out for it — anyone argue that the Shops Act 1950 represents the best arrangement for Sunday shopping, and that it should be kept. Far from it. Every hon. Member who spoke wanted the law changed in one direction or another. There were many who backed one of the three options just as they stood. Quite a number would obviously like to fine-tune their preferred option in Committee.
I am confident that there is an overwhelming desire to sort out Sunday on both sides of the House, and a general agreement that the options give a real opportunity to do so properly. I hope, therefore, that whatever detailed changes hon. Members individually want to bring to our existing Sunday trading legislation, the House will overwhelmingly support the Second Reading of the Bill as the only realistic chance of reforming it at this present time. If we reject it, I do not believe that we shall be able to secure ourselves another chance for a considerable time to come.
It is not for me to argue for or against any of the options. They represent the aspirations of the different campaigning groups, not of the Government. It is for hon. Members to weigh and choose between them.
Although I shall do what I can to help the Committee examine in detail how the chosen option will work and the

impact that any amendments tabled might have, I do not think that it would be right for me, as I would in the normal way—I hope that hon. Members who have spoken will not take it as a discourtesy—to try to answer the detailed points raised by hon. Members about the options and the way that they will work. They are neither mine nor the Government's, and there is not too much time before 10 o'clock.
A number of points have been raised on which I think it would be useful if I commented. First, I have been asked by several hon. Members about the voting of Conservative Members. On the options and on the way that the options will be dealt with in Committee, there will certainly be a free vote for everyone on the Government side of the House.
On schedule 4—employment matters—the Government will, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, be expecting to whip in the normal way. That question was put to me by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I pay tribute to him for the energy and determination that he has shown in his cause, but he was wrong to think that the Government would not have introduced a Bill on that issue had it not been for his efforts, although I accept that his Bill has strongly influenced the shape of part of the Government Bill.
Although the options are for the House to judge, the law protecting Sunday working is certainly a matter for the Government——

Mr. Alison: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I should like clarification of one point before he moves on to employment protection. If the KSS option is chosen on the first day in Committee of the whole House and that is the option that then goes into Standing Committee, will the Government attempt to table Government amendments to the freely chosen option in Committee? If so, will there be a free vote on those Government amendments?

Mr. Lloyd: If that option is chosen on the first day of Committee on the Floor of the House, then I imagine that the Committee of Selection will select a Committee that reflects that decision. If I serve on that Committee—as the Minister in charge of the Bill, it seems to me that that is likely—I do not expect to introduce Government amendments. I will take the decision of the House as moral guidance on how the House wants to proceed.
If, as I dare say there will be, there are amendments in Committee, there will be a free vote on them. My role will be to advise the Committee on their significance and how they would work out in practice, but it would be for the Committee to decide on a free vote what to accept and what to reject.
As I said, the law protecting Sunday working is very much a matter for the Government. It is one on which virtually every speaker has had something to say. The Government accept that all shopworkers, including those taking up employment after the Bill becomes law, should be able to withdraw from Sunday work, subject to three months' notice.
As the House knows, because of what I have said on previous occasions, I am not convinced that extra formal protection is necessary in practice, as the retail trade has always been confident that it has more than enough volunteers for Sunday work. But it is clear that, whichever option they support, hon. Members believe such a statutory right to be an important ingredient of any successful


solution. As the whole exercise is designed to find the broadest acceptable set of arrangements, we have been happy to meet their concerns.
I therefore remind the House of the full package that we are offering. The new rights will apply to all current shopworkers, even if they have already signed a contract to do Sunday work. They will immediately have the right not to work on Sundays. All shopworkers will be able to opt out of Sunday working on giving three months' notice. That applies to new shopworkers or to shopworkers who agree in writing to work on Sundays.
To answer the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), schedule 4 will protect any employee declining to work on Sunday from dismissal and from any detriment short of that. The rights apply to all who work in or about a shop, and include managers, cleaners and warehouse staff. The rights apply if a shop is open for a period in 24 hours, starting at midnight on Saturday through to midnight on Sunday. They do not apply only to employees who work in the shop when it is open.
The new rights have no qualifying period of service and no upper age limit. Premium pay, however, is quite another matter. The Government are firmly opposed to such a proposal. Many large shops can afford premium pay and will pay it whether or not there is a statutory requirement to do so. Naturally, they would like their competitors to be compelled to pay it as well. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), in an intervention, expressed her worry that, without premium pay, shops may not get the staff they need. If she is right, any shop that wants to open will have to pay premium pay. On the hon. Lady's argument, there is no need to legislate on premium pay if that is what we want to see.
Not all shops can afford premium payments. Many shops which have been legally trading on Sundays for years—newsagents and flower stalls, for example—may well not be able to afford premium pay rates. A requirement to pay them could drive such shops out of business. That would be quite wrong in principle, and it could lead to job losses. We have heard much today about small shops suffering at the hands of big shops; premium pay would give that statutory backing. The Government believe that statutory premium pay is wrong in principle. It would also be impossible to enforce.

Mr. Miller: I did offer the Minister a potential solution. Would he like to comment on it? I referred to the debate that took place on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill. There the Government created an arbitrary differentiation between sizes of companies. According to the Government, that created a solution in that case. Why cannot a similar debate take place in the context of the Bill?

Mr. Lloyd: We could of course gerrymander the arrangements in favour of small shops.

Mr. Miller: So arrangements were gerrymandered in June?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course arrangements would be gerrymandered if one required larger shops to pay more than small shops, rather than leave it to negotiations between employees and employers and what they are able to afford.
There is another problem, which is that it would be impossible to enforce. The problem surrounding the 1950 Act shows that it is essential to have a law that can be easily enforced. If an employer is prepared to offer somebody a job in a shop on Sunday, and that person is happy to accept the rate offered, is it seriously proposed that there should be some system to check whether that person is getting a premium rate? Ask the local authorities whether they want to take on that responsibility, and I know what they will say.

Mr. Sheerman: Does not the same rule apply to people such as those in Sainsbury who are stopped in their promotions, and stopped in their tracks, because they refuse to work on Sundays?

Mr. Lloyd: Let me make it quite clear that nobody will be disadvantaged by not wishing to work on a Sunday. If any manager was so disadvantaged, he would have protection under schedule 4 of the Bill.

Mr. William O'Brien: But for how long?

Mr. Lloyd: For as long as the Act stays on the statute book.
Since the Government's Sunday Trading Bill was defeated in 1986, shopping habits have continued to change, the number of women working has continued to grow, the range of products on the market has continued to expand, and the structure of the retail trade has continued to evolve. The only factor that has remained absolutely static is the Sunday trading legislation—set in a mould that was antique even in 1950.
Public impatience with the Act has grown, on the part of shoppers, shopkeepers and local authorities, whether they want to liberalise or to regulate, but on a more coherent and up-to-date basis.
Despite strenuous efforts by my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), we found no common ground between the campaigning groups outside the House on which a broadly acceptable Bill could be based. That is why we have constructed a Bill containing all the main options, so that Parliament can examine, contrast and compare those options and select the one that it believes will put the law on a coherent and principled basis, commanding once again the support and respect of the community.
I am sure that the House will want to seize that opportunity by giving the Bill an overwhelming Second Reading tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 26.

Division No. 6]
[10.00


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alton, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bates, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bayley, Hugh


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Ashby, David
Bellingham, Henry






Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Betts, Clive
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Phil


Booth, Hartley
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorst, John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Harvey, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hutton, John


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Janner, Greville


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
Khabra, Piara S.


Duncan-Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lord, Michael


Foulkes, George
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David





Maclennan, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sims, Roger


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soames, Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Spink, Dr Robert


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spring, Richard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sproat, Iain


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Merchant, Piers
Steen, Anthony


Milligan, Stephen
Stephen, Michael


Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sumberg, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Sweeney, Walter


Monro, Sir Hector
Sykes, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thomason, Roy


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, Peter


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Olner, William
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


O'Neill, Martin
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trend, Michael


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Tyler, Paul


Patnick, Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Rendel, David
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whittingdale, John


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robathan, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Maginnis, Ken


Bennett, Andrew F.
Marek, Dr John


Boyce, Jimmy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Callaghan, Jim
Parry, Robert


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Patchett, Terry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Simpson, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Madden, Max
Trimble, David






Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Bob Cryer and



Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
That Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedule 4 be committed to a Committee of the whole House; That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee; That, when the provisions of the Bill considered respectively, by the Committee of the whole House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee. —Mr. MacKay.]

Question agreed to.

Committee tomorrow.

SUNDAY TRADING BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified——

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sunday Trading Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act. —Mr. Mackay.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN INVESTMENT FUND

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I beg to move,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Investment Fund) order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
The order's provenance will be well known to the House. It has been commented upon on a number of occasions, and the House will recall that the Edinburgh European Council in December last year at the conclusion of the British presidency agreed a package of measures to promote economic recovery in the European Community. One of those measures was a request that the Economic and Finance Council and the European investment bank
give urgent and sympathetic consideration to the establishment of a European Investment Fund".
Work has now been undertaken and substantially completed, with agreement being reached on the precise role of the fund and on the draft statute which sets out its rules of operation. The Brussels European Council on 29 October was able to commit itself to bringing the fund into existence by the new year.
The order provides for the small amendment necessary for the treaty of Rome to be regarded as one of the Community treaties as defined in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The amendment would add a new article—article 30—to the protocol on the statute of the European investment bank. If the amendment is ratified by all member states, that article will enable the board of governors of the bank to create the European investment fund by unanimous decision.
I come now to the fund itself and how it would operate. The new fund has its origins within the European investment bank, which is one of the Community's least-known, but most efficiently run bodies. It is under the new and illustrious British presidency of Sir Brian Unwin, Because of recent concerns, I visited the bank, and I can report that I did not see signs of extravagance; indeed, I found it to be an extremely professional and well-run organisation.
As the House will know, the bank's primary purpose is to provide medium and long-term loans to capital investment projects that further the economic development of the Community. It borrows the bulk of its funds on the capital markets and borrowers have to meet the full cost of loans. The bank is not allowed to subsidise. Because it has a triple-A credit rating and is non-profit-making, it is able to on-lend at very attractive rates. It now operates on a considerable scale throughout the Community and the United Kingdom is a major beneficiary.
The European investment fund will be an offshoot of the bank. Although the fund will be based at the bank's headquarters in Luxembourg, it will be staffed by bank personnel on secondment. Legally and financially, it will be entirely independent of the bank. There are two reasons for that. The first is operational. The fund will complement, not duplicate, the bank's function as a lender to European Community investment projects. It will not make loans, but rather provide guarantees and in due course take equity stakes in enterprises.
The fund's draft statute allows it to operate throughout the Community in support of two classes of undertakings. One will be small and medium-sized enterprises; the other


will be trans-European networks—projects to improve the links between the various member states' national transportation, telecommunication and energy networks.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend say clearly and precisely whether the order will enable a European fund to underwrite the losses of the channel tunnel, while domestic legislation—as my hon. Friend well knows—prevents us from doing so? There is concern that intra-Community transport could cover the channel tunnel, which some of us consider to be a great white elephant. Bearing in mind that the Government are not permitted under law to subsidise it, can my hon. Friend assure us that the European fund also will not be able to subsidise the channel tunnel project?

Mr. Nelson: The channel tunnel project would be eligible to apply for capital guarantees of the sort that I have mentioned. I understand my hon. Friend's proper concern that the fund might provide guarantees for loans that would effectively finance loss-making activities. The intention is not to subsidise losses, but to guarantee loans that are made available by other institutions.
If a loan is made available to Eurotunnel or one of the other organisations concerned with the project, it is unlikely to be made available specifically to write off an operating loss —although it inevitably forms part of the total capital of the organisation. A loan to that or any other project would be made on the basis of the viability of the project. The fund would enable a guarantee to be provided to the institution providing the loan. Therefore, the position is not quite as my hon. Friend suggested. I hope that he is clear on the point that the fund would not be used in that way, although projects of the sort that he mentioned might be eligible for guarantees of certain loans that had been obtained from other sources.

Mr. David Shaw: On the key issue of subsidising the channel tunnel, my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 prohibits the British Government from subsidising or financially supporting the tunnel with public funds. Will my hon. Friend confirm that nothing in the order is inconsistent with the 1987 provision or will allow Europe to do that which the British Government cannot do?

Mr. Nelson: I do not believe that the order is inconsistent with the 1987 Act. The ability of the fund to provide equity stakes—risk capital interest in businesses —is intended to be applied not to trans-European networks but to small and medium-sized enterprises. Certainly, the channel tunnel does not fit into that category. In any event, it is intended that the equity stakes will be provided only to funds that invest in a variety of such concerns.
The fund's other activities will deal entirely with the provision of guarantees against loans provided elsewhere. They will not break across domestic law. The purpose of the order is to import into domestic law the obligations and agreements made.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister will be glad to know that I do not want to pursue the points raised by two Conservative Members, to which he gave detailed and fair answers. However, given the Minister's general remarks about the investment fund, its

siting and the use of seconded personnel, can he give some idea of the likely scale of the enterprise involved, as and when the fund begins to take shape?

Mr. Nelson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to respond to that point during my remarks.
I mentioned that there were two reasons for the fund's independent status. After it has been in existence for two years, its shareholders may allow it to take equity holdings. It will concentrate particularly on small to medium-sized enterprises, to strengthen their capital base. The fund would not take a holding in its own name but would require stakes in financial institutions that specialised in holdang equity.
The second reason for the fund's independent status is legal and institutional. It is proposed that the fund will have an initial subscribed capital of 2 billion ecu, or around £1·5 billion, which will not be held entirely by the European investment bank. The bank will take a 40 per cent. stake, but it is envisaged that the remaining 60 per cent. will be divided equally between the Community itself—represented by the Commission—and those of the Community's private sector banking institutions that want to become members.
That participation by the private sector is most important. The fund would not attempt to provide guarantees directly to small to medium-sized enterprises in the member states; rather, it would enter into arrangements with local banks that knew those markets and that could then act as the fund's agent.
The fund will be run on a commercial basis and may pay dividends on its capital. As to the fund's guarantee operations, it is expected to have a gearing ratio of 3:1; therefore, a subscribed capital base of 2 billion ecu would allow it to give 6 billion ecu worth of guarantee cover. For reasons of prudence and to allow the maximum spread of support, the fund would not guarantee that more than 50 per cent. of the cost of any project was covered. If, for example, the average guarantee provided by the fund covered 25 per cent. of a project's cost, it could assist projects worth a total of 24 billion ecu, or around £18 billion—but that is very much the ceiling estimate of the fund's potential.
The concept of the European investment fund was given a big push by the initiative launched at Edinburgh last year under the United Kingdom presidency. If the treaty amendment is ratified by all member states, the fund will provide a useful addition to the Community's response to the key problems of unemployment and loss of competitiveness. Because the fund is targeted at small to medium-sized enterprises—the important engines of economic growth and employment in the Community—it will encourage private sector initiative and work with the grain of the enterprise culture, thereby helping to improve competitiveness and employment.
The fund will operate under the aegis of the European investment bank, which has a proven record of competence and efficiency. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Andrew Smith: The Labour party supports the establishment of a European investment fund. It is a useful and potentially very beneficial innovation for which the Labour party has been calling. Indeed, we would like to see it built upon.
Incidentally, the small piece of paper in the form of this order will, if passed this evening, amend the treaties that govern the European Communities. By a similar small piece of paper we could bring the social chapter into effect in this country, and that is precisely the mechanism for doing so which we pointed out during the debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. It would be no more difficult to extend those employment rights to British workers than it is to pass the order this evening, but that is a matter to which we shall return on other occasions.
In addition to welcoming this legislative step to help the European investment fund on its way, I shall ask several questions. First, why on earth has it taken so long to get this far? After all, the decision to set up a fund, as we have just heard, was taken as long ago as the Edinburgh summit on 11 and 12 December last year, and Commissioner Christophersen's letter, setting out in more detail the proposal for the establishment of the fund, was dated 15 January this year. What has been taking the time since then? Who is responsible for the delay? 
After all, more than 18 million people are unemployed throughout Europe and the European economy—now, to many intents and purposes, the real macro-economy of all the member states—remains deeply in recession. Depressed private investment is one of the most disturbing aspects of that recession. In such circumstances, Opposition Members would have thought that a good deal more urgency could and should have been injected into the programme so that the fund could be up and running, generating jobs, improving infrastructure and stimulating recovery.
Secondly, how far has the establishment of the fund progressed? What other countries have yet to take the step to which we are giving effect tonight in amending the protocol? What progress has been made with setting up the interim board of shareholders of the fund? The European Commission said in April, in its report on the Edinburgh initiative about the interim board of shareholders:
This Board will work on the further arrangements for the entry into force of the Fund … Most importantly, it will also begin discussions right away with project promoters, financial institutions and national/regional administrations on specific potential candidates for support.
I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary would tell us how far those consultations have progressed. I should also be grateful if he would tell us in reply who is on the interim board of shareholders, and what reports the Government have received about the progress of its discussions. In particular, because their participation is an important element of the concept of the fund, what third party shareholders have been consulted and what has been the outcome of those consultations? My final question on the subject of timing is, when do the Government expect that the fund will be up and running and giving the guarantees for loans which will enable projects to proceed? 
My third category of questions is about what projects the Government—or other organisations, such as the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies—are encouraging to apply to the fund. What sort of projects do the Government have in mind? It would be helpful if the Economic Secretary would tell us the beneficiaries. The Labour party very much hopes and strongly urges that British private and public sector organisations, and the two together in partnership, are encouraged and assisted by the

Government to apply to the fund and to take full advantage here in the United Kingdom of the opportunities that it offers. We cannot afford to be left behind in the take-up of funds as we have been with other sources of finance, such as the regional and social funds, and on occasion in the use of the European investment bank itself. We want Britain to obtain the full benefits of the opportunities which that type of European Community institutions have to offer.
Fourthly, I propose to ask about the financial accounting for the subscription of capital and expenditure from the fund. I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary could explain whether expenditure on the fund or its guarantees counts against the United Kingdom public sector borrowing requirement. If so, how is that recorded? 
How do the Government see the role of the fund developing? I note that the Commission's explanatory memorandum says:
The main objectives of the fund will be to contribute to the strengthening of the internal market and the furthering of economic and social cohesion. Major infrastructure projects in the framework of the transeuropean networks (TENs), as well as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), especially in Community assisted areas, constitute the main targets of support of the EIF.
Will loan guarantees be used to hasten the progress of public-private partnerships on which to date the Government's words and reannouncements of the same schemes greatly exceed actual progress on the ground? Given that the front-end risk on such projects has been identified as one of the main factors inhibiting private sector involvement, could there not be a role for the European investment fund in providing guarantees to enable such schemes to get under way? Is there a need for the project task force, which the Labour party has advocated, to inject the requisite urgency to get things moving? 
Given that small and medium-sized enterprises are intended to be among the prime beneficiaries of the European investment fund guarantees, does not that make it more important to consider how the interface between small businesses and the European investment fund will work? I note what the Economic Secretary said about the role of banks familiar with the markets in which small and medium-sized enterprises are extending their activities. What do the Government envisage as their role in bringing about that partnership between the domestic banking sector and small and medium-sized enterprises? It is not as though small and medium-sized enterprises do not have one or two complaints about the treatment that they receive from banks at present.
If those enterprises are to benefit from the fund, it is absolutely vital that their involvement with it is assisted. I would argue that that makes a strong case for regional development agencies in the English regions, as well as those in Scotland and Wales, to facilitate that involvement. I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary could tell us how he envisages the fund developing what is described in the Commission's summary as its "secondary business" —that of the limited provision of equity largely through financial intermediaries. Will that become a sort of Euro national enterprise board? If not, how does it differ? 
The Commission's memorandum states:
Other projects, for example in the areas of environmental protection and energy production, may become eligible later after decision of the Fund's ruling bodies.
Given the substantial contribution that environmental projects can make to generating jobs and improving the


quality of life, the sooner those projects can be brought on stream through the work of the European investment fund, the better. What is the Government's thinking on that? 
Finally, what is the Government's position on the size of the fund? Once all the institutional and administrative machinery is in place, and assuming a good take-up of funds can be encouraged, is there not a strong case for

expanding the size of the fund beyond the indicative levels given by the Economic Secretary so that it could be used in a more counter-cyclical way, as the Labour party has argued, to help to play a more significant role in lifting Europe as a whole out of the recession which condemns millions of our fellow citizens to unemployment and thereby diminishes the living standards of us all?

Mr. Bowen Wells: I welcome the new initiative and facility for the European investment bank. The bank has long needed to be able to invest in equities, but it has not had that ability. The new facility to guarantee loans is also extremely welcome.
I should like to add two other points to the list of questions asked by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). First, it seems to me that the change requires a completely different managerial approach by the bank, which is traditionally a conservative bank and has operated, generally speaking, with Government guarantees and other means of securing its lending. An advance into equity lending will be quite foreign to most of its personnel, and they will need additional training. The bank will also need the injection of people with experience in the private sector so that it can make those equity investments on a sound basis.
There is another problem that I would be grateful if the Economic Secretary would explain to the House. How will the bank account to the nation states' Parliaments and to the European Parliament in Strasbourg? The new facility will require careful monitoring, and there should be careful arranged accounting procedures to the Parliaments and possibly to the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have another couple of questions to add. One Minister is known to have a little list, but the Economic Secretary has rather a long list of inquiries to answer, and I do not want to add to his burden, particularly as I know that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) intends to contribute to the in-tray of intrigue in a few moments' time.
I welcome the measure, which is further proof, were any needed, that after the Edinburgh summit and the British presidency, and the passage of the Maastricht treaty through Parliament early this year, those who argue in newspapers and the broadcasting media that Maastricht marked the end, the problem is over and the issue can be put to one side, are wrong. The Europe Community, now the European Union in its other respects, will continue to develop and it is important that it should do so.
As is always the way, we are having a late-night debate in a thinly attended Chamber, with only those of us who have a specific interest in European matters, but the measure is still another sign of the important political and economic steps that will have social implications across the Community as a whole. I have a plea to make as I welcome those developments: it is not the Minister's responsibility, but I hope that the business managers will consider allowing the House one day a week just for European issues, as they have such impact on domestic political and legislative matters that it is nonsensical to go in this way.
My first question concerns the future development of the Community. Clearly, the investment fund will be coming on stream after much discussion—that was acknowledged in the Queen's Speech—about the agreements on accession that will be concluded with the remaining Scandinavian countries and Austria. Given that it is impossible for any measure to anticipate everything that may or may not happen, but that it is a reasonable assumption that those countries will be joining the

Community, it is important to know how the Minister sees any restructuring or rejigging of this which may need to take place to accommodate those developments.
Those of us who have had discussions with the representatives of the Scandinavian countries will know that they have specific anxieties and agendas that they are trying to pursue about the distinct geographic needs of their countries, which are different from, and contrast with, those of some of the existing member states. I suspect that the Scandinavians may look to the investment fund as being of use to them. To what extent has that been anticipated in the discussions? 
My second question concerns our domestic banks. The Minister made some interesting references to personnel of the fund being on secondment and how in due course the fund will look to banks in member states—although perhaps this is less true of banks in this country than of those in other member states—which have regional expertise within member states and may be able to assist or facilitate projects. Will the Minister put a little more flesh on the bones of the attitude of domestic bankers and say what role they hope to play? 
The order is welcome. Let us hope that it will make an important political, economic and social contribution to the well-being of the Community in turning itself into union in due course.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) is right—I cannot add a chorus of praise for the order, although it has potential. We need to examine what that potential is and how it is to be exercised. There is some confusion about the nature of the fund and how it will be organised and run.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) is right to say that this is a relatively simple piece of paper, but I remind hon. Members and anyone who may be listening or who may read the debate that a single paper of this sort can authorise a complete treaty. This is not all that long. It is not called a treaty. It is rather confusingly called an Act. In the early days of this procedure, I arrived in the Chamber with a heap of treaties this high, which were being authorised by a single statutory instrument. At lease we have this opportunity to scrutinise, and if my questions to the Minister appear naive it is not for want of reading the literature that has been supplied to us.
It is a pity that the explanatory note is highly constitutional and does not tell us much about the fund. I understand that it is a fund, but not necessarily one that will give loans, although other hon. Members have suggested that it might. As I understand it, its purpose is to provide guarantees, thus stimulating activity that would not otherwise take place in the realm of trans-European networks and small and medium-sized enterprises. A gentleman in Denmark once said to me, "Mr. Spearing, in Denmark all our firms are small or medium-sized enterprises." There are volumes of Government commissioned documents according that definition, which is pretty elastic to start with.
I am concerned because the explanatory note on the order does not take us far down that road, although the explanatory memorandum on the Commission document does. It makes it fairly clear. It says that the fund is for


assuming and managing more specific risks without jeopardizing its credit standing and mainstream lending.
That refers to the European investment bank. I assume that the fund is not a fund from which we can borrow and earn income but is a form of guarantee. The explanatory memorandum later says that the fund will
facilitate private infrastructure financing by providing a complement or alternative to recourse to government guarantees for infrastructure financing. The viability criterion will also be an essential ingredient in its approach to SMEs.
That confirms that it is a mechanism for creating guarantees that give confidence to those who subscribe capital, rather than for subscribing capital itself.
The Act is a mini-treaty, agreed in Brussels in March 1993 and awaiting ratification, of which this debate is part. Article A explains that, at present, the protocol of the European investment bank is not wide enough to fulfil that function. Paragraph 2 of new article 30 of the European investment bank statute says:
The Board of Governors shall establish the Statute of the European Investment Fund by unanimous decision. The Statute shall define, in particular, its objectives, structure, capital, membership, financial resources, means of intervention and auditing arrangements, as well as the relationship between the organs of the Bank and those of the Fund.
So all is there to be decided. By what means will the statute be made known to the House and the public? The objectives exist in broad terms and will, I presume, be part of the statute setting up the fund.
On the mysterious question of membership, the explanatory memorandum says that membership will be tripartite: member states; the Commission—30 per cent.; and other private organisations. I assume that those private institutions mentioned in paragraph 4 can be banks or other funds already in the private sector within the Community. I presume that members, who are appointed in proportion to their risk, must manage the fund and decide to whom, and for what purposes, guarantees are to be made.
The knock-on effect appears to be considerable, because other parts of the memorandum say that we will not have to pay much to the fund. Britain's paid-up amount is relatively small and we therefore take a proportion of the risk, in proportion to our national sector. How can the Commission take a risk separate from that of member states? 
This does not seem to be a fund in the normal sense of the word, unless it is a fund for guarantees. It appears to deal with insurance, akin to institutions in the City that take on risks. Is it not essentially a risk-bearing mechanism, to be controlled partly by the bank—the Minister mentioned our representative on it—but also by other persons, as yet unnamed, and representing world institutions that would take the risk? Can we know more about who they are likely to be? Will there be people from the United Kingdom? What qualifications will they have? How will those matters be reported? I presume that they will be reported first to the bank, then from the bank to member Governments, then from member Governments to the House—if they get that far.
I am less enamoured of this set-up than some of my hon. Friends, who may assume that it will have the effects that they hope, but I cannot see the connection. It may deal with large projects—the channel tunnel was mentioned earlier —and various small and medium-sized enterprises may benefit. I assume that they must put up a case, saying that they are part of the European single or internal market. I understand that another purpose of the fund is to stimulate the said market.
I am also a little worried about the extent to which this is not just a complement to Government guarantees but a replacement for them. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum said:
The existence of the Fund will thus facilitate private infrastructure financing by providing a complement or alternative to recourse to government guarantees for infrastructure financing. The viability criterion will also be an essential element".
The question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East about the proportion of public sector borrowing is relevant here. Will decisions on financial guarantees for large projects be transferred away from Her Majesty's Government and handed to those who govern the running of the fund? I take it that that is what the memorandum means. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I hope that he will tell the House the answer at some stage.
I close on a topical note. At a time of great unemployment and when there was a need for transport expansion and co-ordination in London, following the first world war, the House passed an Act known as the Trade Facilities Act 1921, which resulted in guarantees for the extension of the Northern line south of Clapham to Morden, and the western extension of the Central line, which was not actually built until after the next war. Could such guarantees be given now to British Rail or to any private firm by the Government without transgressing any European treaty? If not, and if this fund is the only way of assisting such networks, especially the channel tunnel, the House should know about it. If the Minister cannot reply tonight, I intend to table a written question on the subject tomorrow.

Mr. Nelson: With the leave of the House, I should like to thank hon. Members for their highly pertinent questions this evening.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) made a number of points with which I will try to deal as expeditiously and frankly as possible. He asked why it had taken so long to bring the fund from its inception at the Edinburgh Council to where it is now. Actually, it has moved fairly speedily, given that all member states have to ratify the proposal. Only two have done so thus far, but all will have to ratify by the end of this year.
In the Edinburgh presidency conclusions, there was a specific request that "urgent" progress be made with implementation of the fund. But it was necessary first for the draft EIF statutes to be drawn up. It was also necessary for a draft Council decision under article 235 of the European Communities treaty on Community participation in the fund to be drawn up and submitted to the Scrutiny Committee—as indeed it was.
We are now approaching the point at which the EIF can be launched. We hope that it will be up and running in the early part of next year, but work is already under way to identify those who may be able to benefit from the guarantee resources which will constitute the early part of the fund's remit.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked what work was being done to identify the candidates. Preliminary work has certainly been done, but it was felt premature, before the fund's constitution had been set, for applications to be invited and candidates to be vetted. Nevertheless, in conjuction with work on the proposed statutes of the fund, some work has been done.
I pay tribute to the president of the EIB, Sir Brian Unwin, who has worked hard in the member states, including this country, encouraging commercial banks to take up the opportunity of being shareholders in the E1F, and advertising more widely among the member states the opportunities that will arise once the fund is itself funded.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked who would be on the board. There will be a supervisory board. It is intended, I believe, that the president of the bank will be the chairman of that board, but the detailed composition will be a matter laid down in the statute of the fund after article 30 has been imported into the protocol to the treaty of Rome. It will then be up to the fund, in conjunction with the European investment bank, to determine the details of how the various constituent shareholders will be represented on the supervisory board and the working committees.
The hon. Gentleman asked what sort of projects would qualify. I know that this is of interest to hon. Members —particularly those who want industrial regeneration and the uptake of employment for their constituencies, especially through small to medium-sized enterprises. Earlier, I referred to energy, telecommunications and transport; they clearly fit the definition of trans-European networks. The range of small to medium-sized enterprises is much wider, but the fund is not intended to provide guarantees direct to such enterprises: that will be done through the medium of commercial banks. However, the European investment bank itself provides—and recently the European Communities have enhanced the resources for—capital lending to small to medium-sized enterprises. An additional facility of some 1 billion ecu is being provided for subsidised lending: I believe that the current proposal is around 3 per cent. on the interest rates paid by such enterprises. A lot is being done.
As for financial accountability, a report will be prepared. The various constituent shareholders of the Community and the commercial banks that take up their shareholdings, as well as the investment bank itself, will be recipients. It will be run in close conjunction with the investment bank; it will be subject to the European Court of Auditors, and statute will lay down in great detail the financial accounting and reporting procedures.
A number of hon. Members asked about the status of the contributions to the fund, its capitalisation and how it relates to our public sector borrowing requirement. The answer is that it does not—except in so far as we make a notional contribution through the total resources that we give to the European Community, part of which will go towards financing our shareholding through the Community. We are shareholders in the investment bank, but its shares in the fund will be bought by its own internal capital resources; that will not be a call on the taxpayer, here or elsewhere in the Community.
The Community's shareholding will be funded from Community resources. That was provided for in the Heads of Government conference in Edinburgh; no additional contribution is involved. The private-sector funds will not be a call on the Government. That is not to say that no liabilities are involved. In the past, the House has rightly been concerned about the fact that nothing is free. Contingent liabilities are potentially involved, with the guaranteeing of loans given to organisations. Those can go

belly up: things can go wrong. If the guarantee is called, it is real money that must be paid out of the European investment fund to the lending institution.
It is intended that only 20 per cent. of the 2 billion ecu that will be the initial proposed ceiling of funding will be drawn down in initial subscriptions for capital to run, or pay for, the business. The remainder will be held as a call against default on those guarantees. If a number of those enterprises go wrong, the loan is called in and the guarantee is called, the funds will be there; but it will run on a very prudent basis, with only 20 per cent. initially being drawn down and the remainder being held against default.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked how the present proposals would interface with the private finance initiative. In answer to him, and perhaps to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), let me say that the intention is not that the fund should take over from existing guarantees that are provided or make up for shortfalls elsewhere. The intention of the European Community expressed at the Edinburgh summit was that here would be a positive sum gained—a recovery fund in addition to what was already provided at national level. I hope and believe that the fund would be reluctant simply to refinance liabilities that had already been entered into. We are talking about funding over and above existing provision—or rather new guarantees of funding for trans-European networks and small to medium-sized enterprises.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked whether the fund would become a Euro-national enterprise board. We all pray fervently that it will not, and I was interested that the hon. Gentleman seemed to be making the case against such a trend. The important point is that, even if, after two years, the fund takes direct investment interest, it is not intended that it should invest directly in the small to medium-sized enterprises concerned. Funding will be through the medium of private sector investment trusts or funds so that the commercial element of choice and backing is introduced. The fund will simply pump prime or add additional liquidity to the financing and sources of funding of small to medium-sized enterprises. I hope that the fund will not be a direct investment board but will greatly help the private sector to do the job that it should be doing in the regeneration of industry.
Provision will be made for the funds to be increased beyond the level of some £2 billion, but that is not intended to be an early aspiration: the organisation must walk before it runs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) asked about equity investment and said that new expertise would be needed. I entirely agree, and that is an important point. There are some extremely able people at the European investment bank who have to make judgments about risk as well as debt financing, and they will be seconded to the organisation. Additional people will probably be employed, but it is intended to keep them to the minimum and to appoint only in specialist areas. Provision will be made largely by seconding existing effort from the European investment bank. My hon. Friend also asked how the fund would be accountable, and I hope that I have answered that.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) gave a welcome to the proposal—for which I thank him—and rightly pointed out the great social implications that it may have. He asked about the


implications of the accession of other countries, and, in doing so, made an extremely telling and important point. Very often, Euro-bodies—the European investment bank is a large and eminent one—end up with empire aspirations that go beyond their original remit. Instead of financing organisations within the Community—the purpose for which they were originally established—they start becoming emulators of world banks. So it is that the European investment bank is financing enterprises in the Caribbean, south America and eastern Europe. There are good arguments for that, and I have tried to test some of them, but we need to keep our eye on the ball and ensure that the overwhelming majority of hard-pressed taxpayers' funds and liabilities are directed within the Community and not allowed to escape it. So there are implications for relations with nearby and potential acceding countries.
I have answered the question about domestic banks and the interest that they have taken. Only one in the United Kingdom has shown an interest so far, and that is Nikko Securities, but it is hoped that more interest will be forthcoming. The Government have certainly supported Sir Brian Unwin in making information available to the banks concerning the opportunities that exist.
The hon. Member for Newham, South rightly made a number of points about procedure. It is not novel but it is slightly unusual that we should be proposing the change by way of an order rather than primary legislation, and the hon. Gentleman is right to test the Government on that point. It was felt that the provision fell within section 1(3), and there are good precedents both in relation to changes to the European investment bank and to the de-accession of Greenland, so I am told.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked by what means the European investment fund statute would become known to the House. The statute has not been promulgated because the fund has not yet been set up. There is no requirement that the detail of the statute shall be published or promulgated. I agree that a strong case could be made for that, and I shall take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, as will those Ministers who are involved in the European Community. There is a strong case for ensuring that the statute—that is to say, the detail of the constitution of the new fund—is made more widely available.
I hope that I have answered most of the queries raised in this interesting debate, and that the House will approve the order.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his attempts to answer the bulk of the questions asked by hon. Members. I asked a question to which he did not respond. I asked whether the Commissions's proposal that an interim board of shareholders be established immediately had been implemented, and whether the board is meeting and taking decisions. I shall give way to the Minister if he is prepared to answer that, or perhaps he will write to me on the matter.
The Minister said that the European Community and member states had moved speedily on this matter. The hon. Gentleman and the Government may think it speedy, but Europe's unemployed could not possibly agree, and the quicker it is up and running and doing some good by generating investment funds, the better. We shall watch closely to see how quickly it is established and what good it does. We shall also keep a close watch on how it reports

its work and how the Government report back to the House to ensure the accountability that hon. Members rightly expect.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 3.

Division No. 7]
[11.06 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Amess, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Ancram, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Heald, Oliver


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hendry, Charles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Horam, John


Baldry, Tony
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bates, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Boswell, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Bowden, Andrew
Hunter, Andrew


Bowis, John
Jack, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Jenkin, Bernard


Brazier, Julian
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Burns, Simon
Key, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butcher, John
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Carttiss, Michael
Knox, Sir David


Chapman, Sydney
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Colvin, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Congdon, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Conway, Derek
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Legg, Barry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Leigh, Edward


Couchman, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lightbown, David


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Luff, Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maclean, David


Dover, Den
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Malone, Gerald


Eggar, Tim
Mans, Keith


Elletson, Harold
Marland, Paul


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Monro, Sir Hector


Faber, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fabricant, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Sir Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Norris, Steve


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Ottaway, Richard


French, Douglas
Paice, James


Fry, Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gallie, Phil
Pickles, Eric


Garnier, Edward
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillen, Cheryl
Rendel, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gorst, John
Richards, Rod


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Robathan, Andrew


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hague, William
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard






Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trend, Michael


Soames, Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walden, George


Spink, Dr Robert
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Sproat, Iain
Watts, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stephen, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stern, Michael
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Sweeney, Walter
Yeo, Tim


Sykes, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Tellers for the Noes:


Cryer, Bob
Mr. Nigel Spearing and


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Investment Fund) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Merchant Shipping

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Mayday, Mayday, Mayday. This debate is a distress call of behalf on the British merchant shipping industry, and it is one in a long line of debates, amendments, committee reports and questions to Ministers that have for more than a decade —and certainly ever since I entered the House—sought to achieve Government action that would halt the catastrophic and unnecessary decline of the British merchant fleet.
I make it crystal clear that this is not a request for Exchequer handouts to an inefficient industry unable to compete on world markets. Our shipping industry is highly efficient and competitive. In several sectors, United Kingdom operators are among world leaders. The Department of Transport itself has stated that British companies have taken significant steps to rationalise their activities and to improve their competitiveness. Wage costs, thanks to a revolution in labour relations in recent years, are kept at competitive levels.
The Government have a policy to assist the industry, and on many occasions Ministers have spelt it out to the House. Why, then, is there still a problem and what is it? The difficulty arises because the Government's policy has not been successful in the past, it is not working now, and it shows no sign whatever of being successful in the future.
Other developed countries provide measures to encourage investment and to reduce crewing and operating costs that the British Government have steadfastly refused to contemplate for Britain's merchant shipping industry. Instead, the Government's policy has been to persuade our competitors to abandon their support measures and, in the meantime, to do nothing to enable our industry to compete on level terms, which is what the industry asks for.
I believe that those terms must now be provided. If they are not, as surely as night follows day, the merchant fleet will continue to decline and, by the time of the next election, we may very well see "the end of the Red Duster". That was to be the title of the debate when I applied to Madam Speaker for it. I suppose that, unfortunately, the Table Office must have intervened, and bowdlerised the title to the blander one of "Merchant Shipping". Either way, I am delighted to have the opportunity of the debate.
I ask again, is the end of the Red Duster—because that is what we are contemplating, for sure—what a Conservative Government wish to preside over? If it is, I believe that they should say so and we shall know where we are, but if it is not, the measures that I shall speak about are essential.
Let me first spell out several examples of what other Governments are providing. On the investment side, German shipowners are now allowed tax depreciation that gives, in effect, a 50 per cent. first year allowance, but that is in addition to a continuing depreciation allowance, reduced corporation tax rates on foreign earnings and existing operating subsidies—the continuation of those was confirmed, contrary to expectations in Britain, earlier this year.
In the Netherlands, shipowners receive ship investment grants, the scope of which was recently extended.


Furthermore, shipowners may now elect for a reduction in the profits tax in place of the subsidy, and that gives further flexibility to owners.
Let us now consider crewing and operating costs and the way in which other countries' measures have helped their shipping industry. In France, the level of contributions that are made by the shipowner to the seafarers' social security fund was cut by 50 per cent. in October 1993, making the cost of employing French seafarers comparable to crew costs on the French second register.
In Sweden, shipowners receive the income tax that is paid by their seafarers and a portion of seafarers' national insurance contributions as a wage cost subsidy. That measure had been cancelled, but was reintroduced and extended indefinitely in October this year.
The Norwegian Government are considering increasing substantially the subsidy that they provide for the employment of Norwegian seafarers, and the United States Government are actively supporting a new maritime subsidy scheme for designated ships operated by US companies at a cost of $1 billion over ten years.
Those are all measures that were either recently introduced or confirmed. Unfortunately, they are a broadside—it gives me no pleasure to say this—which demolishes the Government's argument that working for level terms is the right way forward at this time. The Government are going backwards, not forwards, as the examples that I have given show.
Working towards level terms may be the right way forward in the long term, but at present all our European competitors and the United States are moving firmly the other way. If my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me otherwise to any significant extent and give me examples, I shall be glad to hear them. In addition to the countries that I have already mentioned, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain all provide some form of tax allowances and related benefits, which in most cases are superior to what is available in the United Kingdom.
My purpose tonight is to impress on our Government the vital importance of taking urgent action to stimulate the renewal of our merchant fleet, which is aging fast, and express the hope that that will be reflected at last in tomorrow's Budget. We must staunch the decline of our merchant fleet and encourage the training and employment of British seafarers.
In terms of investment—the specific point on which I want to focus tonight—the purpose of what the industry asks for is the fiscal treatment of British owners on level terms with those of their competitors specifically by introducing a 100 per cent. first-year allowance for investment in ships. Interestingly, there is a precedent for that. Effectively, a sectoral maritime enterprise zone would be created, following the precedent of regional enterprise zones, of which shipping companies cannot take advantage. I should also like to see extended to seven years the period of roll-over relief which currently applies to the balancing charges on the sale and purchase of ships.
Recent independent research offers both a negative and a positive scenario for the future. It was commissioned by the Chamber of Shipping, but it was carried out by Professor Douglas McWilliams. He used econometric modelling to predict the future of the shipping industry under, first, the current regime and, secondly, a regime of 100 per cent. first-year allowances. Under the current

regime, the picture is extremely gloomy. The report estimates that the size of the United Kingdom-owned fleet will fall from its present level of almost 14 million dead weight tonnes to 8·5 million dead weight tonnes by the year 2000, and to 5 million dead weight tonnes by 2,010.
The number of seafarers would fall from its present level of 19,000 to 9,000 by the year 2000 and to 4,000 by 2010. The invisible earnings of the United Kingdom shipping industry would also be substantially reduced under the current regime. However, a policy of 100 per cent. first-year allowances would encourage greater investment in ships by United Kingdom owners. It is estimated that by 2010 the policy would have paid for the expected renewal programme and brought £360 million in overall additional tax revenues per year. It would maintain the size of the fleet at more than 11 million dead weight tonnes. It would also create or preserve 15,000 jobs in shipping and other industries. Most importantly, it would increase the invisible earnings of shipping to £6·6 billion from the present £3·7 billion.
That report was independent, but it confirms the arguments made by the Chamber of Shipping in the past five years. The prospects for world shipping are good. Estimates are that world trade will grow at about 4 per cent. compound until the year 2010. The Department of Transport supports that view. The demand for shipping services will expand, as the report recognises.
British companies are ready and able to take advantage of those opportunities in the right conditions, but unless the United Kingdom shipping industry is able to compete on an even footing with its rivals it will be unable to sustain its share of the market or its current contribution to our economy. If it sustains and improves its position in an expanding market, the benefits will feed into sectors other than shipping, especially the manufacture of shipbuilding and marine equipment and, most vitally, the various services in the City of London. That will help to keep Britain and London at the centre, where they are now, of the maritime world. We cannot expect that position to continue if we are not developing people with a maritime background, who then come ashore and work in the maritime industries later in their lives. That has always been the backbone of the strength of Britain's business contribution world wide to shipping activity.
One of the great difficulties in obtaining full recognition of the importance of these issues by Government may be the wide range of Departments and Ministries whose interests are affected, which include the Department of Transport, the sponsoring Ministry, on whose behalf my hon. Friend will reply. The Department of Trade and Industry is concerned, and the Department of Employment and the Ministry of Defence are involved. Key to all this, of course, is what I have to call tonight the baleful influence, so far, of the Treasury. That inevitably diffuse appreciation of the issues may dilute the real impact and urgency that Britain faces. It tends to result in a lower priority being given to the shipping sector than to other transport sectors.
I appreciate that, in making that point, I am not making a totally fair comparison. However, it is right to point out to the House the tiny proportion of the annual budget of the Department of Transport that is devoted to shipping matters. It is about 0·5 per cent. The annual budget is £6 billion and sea transport gets £30 million, which mainly covers safety and pollution control work. I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that shipping is given a higher priority in


the Department than it has had in the past. It is surely essential to us as an island nation—to the carriage of our trade, to our economy, to our balance of payments, to our employment, to our skills and, not least, to our defences.
I know that Ministers argue robustly that the latest information makes them sanguine that if sea lift was required in an operation of the kind that we had to carry out in the Falklands or in the Gulf, in one way or another, ships and crews could be chartered and made available to do that sea lift. This is certainly not the view of Sir Julian Oswald, the recently retired First Sea Lord, who, addressing a meeting recently in another place, made it clear that he had deep concerns on the issue. I believe that current senior officers in the Royal Navy share those concerns. That issue too is of major importance.
I now turn to the most recent committee report—the report, produced by the Select Committee on Employment two or three days ago, containing its recommendations following a study into the decline of employment in the merchant fleet. It made a number of important points. It expressed its concern at the decline in the number of officers and ratings and said:
The extra cost of employing British crews has been made harder to bear by the fact that the UK industry is forced to compete with countries which have introduced strong financial assistance for their own merchant fleets.
It repeated what others have said when it reported:
Britain is not training enough officers to meet either future demand or the needs of related industries.
In uncovered an interesting point when it said:
Furthermore, we are concerned that public funds intended to subsidise training opportunities for UK seafarers are being applied to train staff from competitor countries.
That issue must be addressed.
The Committee also focused on the need for training enough officers to take their place in jobs ashore in the future. It also spoke about defence requirements. In conclusion, it reported:
We welcome the modest support that the taxation system currently provides the shipping industry, but we believe that measures to encourage investment in ships and reduce employment costs are essential to safeguard the future interests of the merchant navy, of related industry, of our national defence and of those young people seeking a career in shipping.
I rest my case, not on what I have just said, but on the long line of reports, amendments and discussions in the House and in Committee, and in the outside world, which have unfortunately demonstrated that the prognosis of decline has come true. That must not be allowed to continue.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on his excellent speech on an important subject. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Worcester (Mr. Luff), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who listened to him, take a keen interest in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) is also present and he has told me of his specific interest in merchant shipping. They have greatly enjoyed what my hon. Friend had to say.
I hope that it is not too churlish to say that it is rather significant that there is not one member of Her Majesty's Opposition present to listen to this important debate on an

industry that they purport frequently to hold dear. When push comes to shove at what is, after all, just after half-past 11, they cannot even find a Front-Bench spokesman to attend. When the crocodile tears are shed on future occasions, I shall remind the Opposition of how much they seem to care, in practice, about our merchant shipping.
My hon. Friend has a great future ahead of him in writing film scripts. His opening line of "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" was dramatic enough and I am rather sorry that the Table Office chose to delete the rather dramatic title for the debate of "Death of the Red Duster" and substitute the anodyne, "Merchant Shipping". I hope to be treated to other examples of my hon. Friend's imaginative approach to this matter in the future. It certainly does a great deal to enliven our debates at this hour.
My hon. Friend made some important comments and I shall try to reply to some of them in the short time available to me. He quoted from the report of the Select Committee on Employment, which said:
the percentage of the Department of Transport's budget … devoted to shipping … is a telling example of how low down the list of the Department's priorities shipping stands.
If my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, that quotation is simply untrue, and it would be untrue even if the Committee had used the correct statistical data to support its conclusion.
I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that the Government are fully aware of the contributions that the British merchant fleet has made and continues to make to the country in times of peace and crisis. We are also well aware that there are associated maritime industries, which have grown up in the City, which serve the merchant fleet and which now exist to serve not only the British industry but the needs of a significant proportion of world shipping.
In the past, the British fleet developed and prospered by identifying opportunities and exploiting them. It should therefore come as no surprise that other nations, especially the newly industrialising nations, will follow a similar route in developing their own national fleets.
Inevitably, such competition will impact on the size and composition of our fleet. Over the past 20 years or so, we have witnessed a big reduction in British flagged and owned tonnage, and at the same time a significant restructuring which is reflected in the types of ships that now comprise our national fleet. But our experience is not unique. Other traditional maritime nations have faced similar and undoubtedly equally painful adjustments. Given that a large part of our shipping is international, we cannot insulate ourselves from international competition of the sort that I have described.
My hon. Friend was correct in claiming that we can all swallow hard and accept the consequences of fair competition, but it is a great deal more difficult to accept the pain caused by unfair competition. My hon. Friend had something to say about that which I thought was pertinent, but I hope that he will allow me to say that it is not the whole story. He gave the House some examples—and he was quite right—of areas in which some other European nations appear to offer more favourable practices, including fiscal practices, treatment of training and treatment of personnel, than perhaps is the case in the United Kingdom. I recall that the Select Committee report contains a tabulation listing the practices in each of the member states. I hope that I am not misrepresenting my hon. Friend when I say that he will undoubtedly have taken


his information from that table. If he did, perhaps I may make it clear that there are also examples which tend to point in the other direction.
In Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, seafarers are treated no differently from other employees for taxation purposes. By contrast, in the United Kingdom, seafarers who spend fewer than 183 days in this country in any 365-day period qualify for 100 per cent. tax relief on foreign earnings. Seafarers in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal, like their United Kingdom counterparts, make the same social security payments as other employees, and I know that some recent concessions have been made by France on this. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, we are seeking further clarification from the French Government on their move.
In Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy and Portugal, corporation tax is higher than the 35 per cent. levied in the United Kingdom. Of course, Germany's rate of 33·6 per cent. and the 35 per cent. levied in the Netherlands and Spain are exactly comparable with the United Kingdom. Unlike many other countries covered by the survey, we offer direct financial support for officer training. At present, that is in excess of £3 million a year—not, incidentally, the £0·7 million quoted on page 155 of the Select Committee's report. We also provide relief in the form of a subsidy of about £3 million per year to enable crews to be shipped or flown abroad to where they pick up the vessel.
In addition, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary explained during the debate on the Finance Bill earlier this year, shipping—together with the rest of industry—benefits from the Government's fiscal and monetary policies. While I am on this subject, I take the opportunity to acknowledge my hon. Friend's understanding that on the eve of the Budget he cannot expect me to say anything more specific on that matter; I aim to hold this office for at least another 24 hours, if not longer.
I have given those examples simply to demonstrate that there are two sides to the coin. My hon. Friend is right that there are some areas in which other European competitors appear to offer more advantage than that offered in the United Kingdom. As I hope that the illustrations I have given show, however, there are many ways in which the United Kingdom offers a competitive environment.
Our Government have evolved a package of measures tailored to suit the needs of our shipping industry. For example, training is high on our agenda, and that is entirely right. Some support measures serve only to distort the market and, as such, they represent unfair competition. It is that latter group that we targeted during our recent EC presidency, and which we shall continue to attack. I make no apology for that. We hope that our partners will be persuaded by our arguments. I do not claim that we are on the threshold of success, but there are signs that others are beginning to accept the force of what we say.
It is interesting to note that many of the EC countries which are often praised for the support that they give their national shipping have been unable to work the longed-for miracle. Within the Community, in the 12 months from 1 January 1992 to 1 January 1993, only France, Greece and the Netherlands could claim an increase in registered tonnage. All the other member states lost ground during that period.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to acknowledge that overt financial and/or fiscal support is not the only means whereby our competitors can gain unfair advantage. Over the years, we have made every effort to remove restrictions on trading opportunities. We were delighted that the debate on EC cabotage was brought to a successful conclusion during our presidency.
I shall not disguise the fact that the result was not so liberal as we should have liked. Nor do I ignore the fact that, regrettably, some member states are being selective in their implementation of the agreement. Nevertheless, even in its present form it is of considerable significance to British shipping and will open up new and potentially profitable opportunities, which will grow as the various derogations lapse. As I speak, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping met our EC counterparts in an endeavour to agree further measures, which we hope will redound to the benefit of the Community and, by extension, to our shipping industry, to those who work in it and to users.
It is of regret that many of the newer flag states regard shipping as a soft option and consequently pay little or no attention to their responsibilities. That is grossly unfair to seafarers, to passengers who sail on their ships and to manufacturers who, in good faith, entrust their cargoes to them. Nor is it fair to countries whose environment suffers the consequence of badly maintained vessels, or indeed those responsible ship owners, particularly those who fly the Red Duster, who maintain their ships to the highest standards at considerable cost in terms of time and money. The United Kingdom has recognised the problem and taken the lead in seeking remedies with like-minded Governments in the EC and International Maritime Organisation.
There are one or two points that my hon. Friend made on the detailed 100 per cent. ship allowance and roll-over relief that I have not been able to answer, together with his point about merchant shipping and defence. I hope that he will accept that the recent review allowed Ministers in the Ministry of Defence to announce that special measures on shipping were not considered necessary. If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend on any outstanding issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Twelve midnight.